Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 05 MAY 2018

What should the supporting statement to a payment claim contain or does it matter anymore?

Holding Redlich
Holding Redlich
Contributor
Holding Redlich

Holding Redlich

Holding Redlich is a large national commercial firm with offices in Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney,...

View firm profile
Explore more from Holding Redlich

Contractors must ensure they conform in every respect with the Act and that the information must be full and accurate.

AustraliaReal Estate and Construction

In the recent decision of Central Projects v Davidson the Supreme Court has clarified the requirements for a Supporting Statement under section 13(7) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act making observations about the consequences of a breach of section 13(8) that depart from established authority.

It didn't take long after the commencement of the amendments to the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (the Act) inserting the requirement for a Supporting Statement in April 2014 for the operation of those provisions to be tested. In Kitchen Xchange v Formacon Building Services [2014] NSWSC 1602 (5 November 2014, concerning events that took place in June 2014) McDougall J observed that section 13(7) is "prohibitory", going on to say that a payment claim not accompanied by a Supporting Statement is not properly served [36].

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