Isis Projects v Clarence Street

The parties involved in this case are Isis Projects, the applicant, and Clarence Street, the respondent. The dispute arose under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (the Act), where the respondent had paid part of one progress claim and none of another. The applicant sought to recover the unpaid amounts as a debt. The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether the applicant was entitled to recover the unpaid amounts, whether the progress claims identified the construction work to which they related, and whether the progress claims were supported by sufficient evidence. The court also needed to consider whether the respondent had failed to provide a payment schedule or paid the whole or part of the claimed amount by the due date, which would trigger the application of section 15(4)(b)(ii) of the Act.

The court found that the progress claims identified the work by single line item references, which was sufficient to meet the requirement in section 13(2)(a) of the Act that a payment claim identify the construction work to which the payment relates. The court also found that the respondent had not objected to the form of the payment claims on eleven prior occasions, which was relevant to the question of whether the progress claims were acceptable. The court further found that the progress claims were supported by sufficient evidence, as required by the contractual clause. Finally, the court found that the respondent had not provided a payment schedule or paid the whole or part of the claimed amount by the due date, which triggered the application of section 15(4)(b)(ii) of the Act.

As a result of the above findings, the court held that the applicant was entitled to recover the unpaid amounts as a debt. The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $12,958.75, being the amount unpaid under the progress claim that the respondent had partially paid, together with interest at the rate of 2.75% per annum from 26 September 2019 until payment is made in full. The court also ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the application, assessed at $5,500.