By Ziv Ben-Arie, Partner
Duffy Kennedy Pty Ltd v Lainson Holdings Pty Ltd  NSWSC 371
Duffy Kennedy Pty Ltd (Builder), entered into a contract with Lainson Holdings Pty Ltd (Owner), to construct a residential development in Cronulla.
The Builder served three payment claims pursuant to the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (Act). None of the claimed amounts were paid by the Owner, and the Builder sought summary judgement for payment of the claimed amounts.
It is noteworthy that, the Builder had failed to include a supplementary statement with its payment claims, as required by section 13(7) of the Act.
Whether a failure to include a supplementary statement in proper form is fatal the service of the payment claim and the Respondent’s liability to pay pursuant to s14(4) of the Act.
The second payment claim was not accompanied by any supporting statement.
As a result, the Builder’s motion for summary judgement was dismissed, as was the Owner’s motion for a stay of execution. Both parties were to bear their own costs.
Meagher JA at  said:
“The evidence supports the following conclusions. First, the statutory declaration which accompanied the claim…was not a supporting statement within s 13(9). Secondly, no document purporting to be a supporting statement accompanied service of the first claim in respect of which DK seeks judgment, namely Payment Claim 1. Thirdly, no supporting statement accompanied the service of Payment Claim 2…”
at  said:
“It follows that the service of each claim was contrary to s 13(7). DK was a head contractor and Lainson was also a sub-contractor. The latter was required to be identified in the supporting statement and a declaration made that all amounts that had become due and payable to Lainson in that capacity had been paid.”
And at :
“There remains to be considered DK’s submission that service contrary to the prohibition in s 13(7) does not have the consequence that there has not been service within s 14(4)(a). The question whether such service is invalid, in the sense that it is not service for the purposes of the Act and does not attract the consequences of such service, was considered by McDougall J in Kitchen Xchange at -. His Honour concluded, relying on the reasoning of Allsop P in Dualcorp Pty Ltd v Remo Constructions Pty Ltd  NSWCA 69; 74 NSWLR 190 at -, that service contrary to s 13(7) was not service within the meaning of s 14(4). I agree with his Honour’s reasoning and conclusion, which I followed in Kyle Bay Removals Pty Ltd v Dynabuild Project Services Pty Ltd  NSWSC 334.”
It is imperative when serving a payment claim to ensure it is compliant with Part 3, Division 1 of the Act. The failure to include a supporting statement may not invalidate the payment claim itself, but it will most certainly invalidate the service of the payment claim. This position was also taken in the case of Kitchen Xchange v Formacon Building Services  NSWSC 1602.
This case illuminates the importance of ensuring that each payment claim intended to be a claim under the Act must be accompanied by a supplementary statement in the correct compliant form presented by the regulations.
A full copy of this decision can be found here.
If you have any questions regarding the content of this summary or require any building or construction advice please do not hesitate to contact us.