Civil & Civic Corporation Pty Ltd v Nova Builders Pty Ltd

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory considered a cross-appeal between Civil & Civic Corporation Pty Ltd and Nova Builders Pty Ltd. The dispute arose from a payment claim made by Civil & Civic under the *Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment) Act 2009* (ACT). Nova Builders contended that this payment claim was invalid because it related to work that had already been the subject of a previous payment claim. The court was asked to determine whether a contractor, in the absence of a specific contractual regime for progress claims, could submit a further payment claim for the same construction work, relying on a new reference date, after having already submitted a payment claim for that work based on a different reference date.

The court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of section 15 of the *Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment) Act 2009* (ACT). The central legal question was whether the Act prohibited a contractor from submitting a subsequent payment claim for the same construction work if it was based on a different, validly established reference date, even if prior claims for that work had been made. The court examined the provisions of the Act concerning payment claims and reference dates, considering the purpose of the legislation to facilitate timely payments in the building and construction industry.

The court concluded that the Act did not preclude a contractor from submitting a further payment claim for the same construction work, provided that each claim was supported by a valid reference date. The primary judge's finding that the payment claim was not invalid simply because it related to work previously claimed, when different reference dates were used, was upheld. The court reasoned that the Act's framework allows for multiple payment claims to be made, each tied to a distinct reference date, and that the existence of prior claims for the same work did not, in itself, render a subsequent claim invalid under section 15. Consequently, the cross-appeal was dismissed.