Isis Projects v Clarence Street Limited

The parties in this case are Isis Projects and Clarence Street Limited, who are embroiled in a dispute concerning an alleged payment for work done under a building contract. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the amendments introduced by the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Amendment Act 2002 required the respondent to specify any objections to a payment claim in a payment schedule. If the respondent failed to do so, it would be liable to pay the claim irrespective of whether the claimant was entitled to the progress payment. The court was also required to determine whether the principles set out in the case of General Steel Industries applied to applications for summary judgment pursued under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 when the parties' final rights were reserved.

The court examined the language of the amending legislation and concluded that the respondent was required to specify any objections in a payment schedule. The court found that the obligation to specify objections in a payment schedule was mandatory and that failure to do so resulted in the respondent being liable to pay the claim. The court also found that the General Steel principles did not apply to applications for summary judgment pursued under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 where the parties' final rights were reserved. The court held that the respondent's failure to specify its objections in a payment schedule resulted in a judgment in favour of the applicant, Isis Projects.

The court made orders for summary judgment in favour of Isis Projects, for payment of the sum claimed, interest, and costs. The court found that the respondent's failure to specify its objections in a payment schedule resulted in it being liable to pay the claim. The court also found that the General Steel principles did not apply to the application for summary judgment in this case, as the parties' final rights were reserved. The court's decision highlights the importance of complying with the requirements of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 and its amendments.