Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Campbelltown Catholic Club Ltd [2003] NSWSC 1103

Contract - building and construction - Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) - Consideration of interrelationship of sundry provisions and analysis of principal's claimed entitlement to commence separate proceedings and/or to avoid summary judgment by invoking discretionary considerations - Progress claim submitted to Superintendent on same date as document purporting to be payment claim under the Act submitted to principal - Principal fails to serve payment schedule complying with sections 14(1) and (2) - Contractor commences proceedings and seeks summary judgment - Principal commences separate proceedings and seeks declaration that it does not owe any amount to contractor in respect of specific progress claim in excess of the amount specified in progress certificate issued by Superintendent and order that principal pay to the contractor such sum as it might recover against principal in the first proceedings second proceedings held to be an abuse of process - Principal in first proceedings contends (as defendant) - That alleged payment claim was not a valid payment claim within s.13(2) of the Act because: (i) it did not identify construction work (or related goods and services) as required by s.13(2)(a); (ii) there was no progress payment claimed as required by s.13(2)(b); (iii) it did not bear the endorsement required by s. 13(2) (c); - That contractor was and is not a person entitled or who claims to be entitled to a progress payment within s. 13(1) because: (i) it was not a person entitled to a progress payment under s. 8(1); (ii) as at the date of the Alleged Payment Claim there was no reference date as and from which contractor was entitled to a progress payment within s. 8(1) and (2); (iii) there was no amount calculated in accordance with the terms of the Contract which constituted a progress payment to which contractor was entitled under s. 9(a); (iv) as at the date of the Alleged Payment Claim there was no progress payment under the Contract which had become due and payable within the meaning of s. 11(1); - That Alleged Payment Claim was not a valid payment claim (in whole or in part) under s. 13 of the Act: (i) to the extent that it claimed for rock excavation, because it was not served within 12 months after such work was last carried out as required by s. 13(4)(b); (ii) to the extent that it claimed for Delay Costs, because such claim was not permitted by the Act, the Delay Costs not being construction work to which the progress payment claimed by contractor related. - Alternatively, that if the Alleged Payment Claim were a valid payment claim, defendant was not liable to pay the amount claimed by contractor by reason that defendant served on plaintiff a payment schedule within the meaning of s. 14 of the Act, being the Certificate issued by Superintendent.

Click here to read full-screen | Click here to print the case