Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 06 AUGUST 2025

Strictly served: Unread emails and premature service

Piper Alderman
Piper Alderman
Contributor
Piper Alderman

Piper Alderman

Helping shape the future of business in Australia with practical, commercial and cutting-edge legal...

View firm profile
Explore more from Piper Alderman

Email service of a payment claim can be valid if implied by prior use, but adjudication timing rules must be strictly followed.

AustraliaReal Estate and Construction

Can a payment claim sent by email be validly served if the respondent never reads it? And if the claimant's follow-up notice of intention to adjudicate is sent before the statutory clock has run, can a good faith attempt by the adjudicator fix the problem? In Rewais v BPB Earthmoving Pty Ltd , the Court of Appeal gave a clear answer to both questions and thereby tightened the screws on compliance.

Facts

The Rewais family lived on a 103-acre property which they intended to renovate. They engaged BRB Earthmoving (BRB). As work progressed, invoices were disputed and payments withheld. Correspondence occurred over email and also via text messages. BRB eventually issued a payment claim under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (Act) by email, followed by a s 17(2) notice of intention to apply for adjudication – again by email, and also by registered post.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from