Isis v Clarence

The case of Isis v Clarence dealt with the issue of summary judgment in relation to progress claims issued under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payments Act. The parties involved were Isis, the claimant, and Clarence, the respondent. The dispute arose from the issuance of progress claims between the practical completion of a construction project and the expiration of the defects liability period. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court.

The primary legal issues that the court needed to decide were whether the progress claims could be made within the specified timeframe and whether they were adequately supported by evidence and information as required by both the contract and the Act. The court also considered whether the issuance of these claims contravened section 13(5) of the Act.

The court held that there was no triable issue regarding the timeframe for issuing progress claims or whether they contravened section 13(5) of the Act. However, it found that there was a triable issue as to whether the progress claims were properly supported by the evidence and information required by the contract and the Act. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was dismissed, leaving the merits of the claims to be determined at a trial. The court’s reasoning hinged on the necessity for sufficient evidentiary support for the claims, which could not be conclusively determined on the papers alone.