Security of Payment NSW - Know your right to receive progress payments for construction works and related goods and services

· 2022年12月14日

As a direct or indirect result of the COVID-19 pandemic and uncertainty in a global economy, various issues have been adversely impacting the construction industry, such as an increase in raw material price and supply chain disruption. Particularly, contractors and subcontractors are struggling with their cash flow due to their outstanding payments for the works carried out.

Accordingly, security of payment legislation in each state has played a role in ensuring that anyone carrying out construction work, and supplying related goods and services under a construction contract gets paid promptly. This article discusses and explains your rights under the NSW Security of Payment Act, and each state has its own security of payment legislation, which may differ from each other in detail.

Know Your Rights

In New South Wales, the relevant security of payment legislation is the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (“SOPA”).

The significance of the SOPA is that it grants contractors rights to receive progress payment even if there is no formal written contract or even if a contract says that you are only allowed to receive a payment at the end of works, i.e., after the completion of works.

Fundamentally, the SOPA entitles a person or a company, who carried out construction work or supplied construction related goods and services, to receive progress payment. A progress payment means a partial payment for works as the project progresses even if the assigned works are not completed. Therefore, the progress payment facilitates cash flow for contractors and suppliers in the construction industry.

Under SOPA, the following rights are granted to you:

- - A right to receive a progress payment at least on a monthly basis;
  - Maximum time limits to respond to claims for progress payments;
  - Maximum payment terms;
  - A right to suspend work in the event of non-payment;
  - No ‘pay when paid’ clause: No need to wait until a contractor you worked for gets paid by a head contractor or principal; and
  - Interest rates applicable on unpaid progress payment.

Who is entitled to receive a progress payment?

A person or company who, under a construction contract or any other construction arrangement, has undertaken to carry out construction work or supply construction related goods or services in New South Wales is eligible to receive a progress payment under the SOPA.[1]

The “construction work” is broadly defined, including construction, alteration, repair, maintenance or demolition of buildings or structures forming part of land.[2] The “related goods and services” also include various related goods and services such as materials for construction or plant for use in construction work, labour service, design or engineering service.[3]

While the SOPA is drafted to cover contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and service providers as broadly as possible, it should be noted that there are also exceptions such as those engaged in the extraction of oil, natural gas or minerals.

Payment Claims

The procedure for receiving a progress payment is triggered by a person entitled under the SOPA (Claimant) making a Payment Claim in writing to the other person who is responsible to make a payment under a construction contract (Respondent)

In making a Payment Claim, Claimants must ensure that the following requirements are met:[4] 1) The construction work related to the progress payment must be identified; 2) The amount of the progress payment must be indicated; 3) A statement that a Payment Claim is made under this SOPA must be inserted; 4) A Payment Claim must be served on the Respondent within 12 months after the construction work was last carried out; and 5) A Payment Claim is only made one (1) time in a month on and from the last day of each month in which the construction work was carried out. How to respond to a Payment Claim? The Respondent is required to respond to the Payment Claim by providing a Payment Schedule to the Claimant within 10 business days after receipt of the Payment Claim. By failing to do so, the amount claimed in the Payment Claim is fixed and Respondents are liable for such amount on the due date. In issuing a Payment Schedule, Respondents also are required to comply with the following requirements:[5] 1) A Payment Claim related to a Payment Schedule must be identified; 2) The amount of the payment the Respondents propose to make must be indicated; and 3) If applicable, reasons why the amount in the Payment Schedule is less than that in the Payment Claim and reasons for withholding payment must be identified. Maximum payment terms One of the most important benefits available under the SOPA is that there are statutory deadlines for a progress payment to be made.[6] If the Respondents fail to pay the progress payment by the deadline in the diagram below, such amount is deemed due and payable, and interest on the unpaid amount is also payable at the prescribed rate. Your rights to suspend works A Claimant also has a right to suspend construction work or supply of related goods and services if a Respondent fails to pay the amount by the due date for payment as described above.[7] At least two (2) business days prior to the suspension, the Claimant must serve on the Respondent a Notice of Intention to Suspend Work in writing. As the date on which the Notice is given is not counted, the Claimant is eligible to suspend work on and from the fourth day of the Notice. Please see the above diagram. Once the work is suspended under SOPA, the Claimant is not liable for any loss or damage suffered by the Respondent as a result of such suspension. However, once the whole outstanding amount is paid, the Claimant must resume the work within three (3) business days from the payment date. Don’t wait until a head contractor gets paid The SOPA expressly prohibits and invalidates any clause in a construction contract that the payment of money is contingent on a milestone or an event in other contracts including a head contract.[8] A common example of these clauses is that a payment under a subcontract is made upon the payment by a principal under a head contract or upon the practical completion of a head contract. Such clauses are deemed unenforceable under the SOPA, and you have a right to claim the progress payment regardless of the operation of other contracts. Adjudication A person eligible under the SOPA also can start an adjudication process for unpaid or disputed progress payments. Adjudication is an informal and independent process which an issue or issues are determined by an independent adjudicator regarding the payment claims. The adjudicator’s determination can be enforced as if it is a judgment rendered in a Court. However, the Claimant must file an adjudication application in writing by the following deadlines:[9] Type Deadline When: 1) Respondent issues a Payment Schedule, and 2) the amount in a Payment Schedule is less than the amount in a Payment Claim Within 10 business days after a Payment Schedule is issued When: 1) Respondent issues a Payment Schedule; and 2) Respondent fails to pay the amount in the Payment Schedule by the due date Within 20 business days after a Payment Schedule is issued When 1) Respondent fails to issue a Payment Schedule; 2) Respondent fails to pay the amount in a Payment Claim by the due date; 3) Claimant serves written notice of intention to apply for adjudication of the payment claim on Respondent within 20 business days from the due date; and 4) Respondent has been given an opportunity to provide a Payment Schedule within 5 business days after receiving notice of intention to apply for adjudication of the payment claim Within 10 business days after the end of the 5 business days for Respondent to provide a Payment Schedule after receiving notice of intention to apply for adjudication of the payment claim Detailed procedures, requirements for adjudication and enforcing the adjudicator’s determination will be discussed in future articles. Payment Withholding A subcontractor who has made an adjudication application for a progress payment is also entitled to request a principal contractor to retain money owed to a head contractor to cover the claimed amount.[10] This is called a ‘payment withholding request’. Upon receipt of the payment withholding request, the principal must retain the amount of money to which the payment claim relates.[11] When a successful outcome is given in the adjudication process, a subcontractor is able to recover the withheld money from the principal through the procedures set out in the Contractors Debts Act 1997 (NSW). How can we assist If you are involved in construction work in New South Wales, the SOPA entitles you to claim the progress payment and have protections accordingly. However, your rights under SOPA may vary depending on your satisfactory fulfilment of requirements and on whether you took proper actions in a timely manner. Although the SOPA sets out a statutory regime for prompt payment for construction work, there are still a number of disputes arising from unpaid progress payments in a construction contract, which ends up with unsatisfactory outcomes for unpaid contractors and suppliers. If you are unsure what rights you have in your construction payment issues, H & H Lawyers will be happy to review your case to check whether it might fall within a case protected under the Security of Payment Act or other relevant laws. We can further assist in finding a way to enforce your rights. Disclaimer: The contents of this publication are general in nature and do not constitute legal advice. The information may have been obtained from external sources and we do not guarantee the accuracy or currency of the information at the date of publication or in the future. Please obtain legal advice specific to your circumstances before taking any action on matters discussed in this publication. [1] SOPA ss4 and 8. [2] SOPA s5 [3] SOPA s5 [4] SOPA s13 [5] SOPA s14 [6] SOPA s11 [7] SOPA s27 [8] SOPA s12 [9] SOPA s17 [10] SOPA s26A [11] SOPA s26B

Related Insights

取締役の責任に関する紛争,不動産開発,役員の責任,不動産関連の紛争,契約に関する紛争

2026年8月7日

Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) 法に基づき取締役が個人責任を負うのはどのような場合か

ニューサウスウェールズ州最高裁判所は、Strata Plan 92183 v Samdora Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 406 において、Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW)（DBP法）の施行以来、実務上大きな関心を集めてきた論点の一つ、「建設会社やデベロッパーの取締役が、欠陥工事について個人的な責任を負うのはどのような場合か」について重要な指針を示しました。本判決は、取締役という肩書だけで責任が認められるわけではなく、実際に建設工事へどのように関与していたかが重要な判断要素となることを明確にしました。なぜこの判決が重要なのか DBP法第37条では、「建設工事（construction work）」を行う者は、建物の欠陥又は建設工事に起因する欠陥によって生じる経済的損失を回避するための法定の注意義務（statutory duty of care）を負うと定められています。さらに、DBP法第36条では、「建設工事」を行う者とは、実際に建築作業を行う者だけを意味するものではありません。例えば、以下のような役割を担っていた者も、「建設工事を行った者」に該当する可能性があります。このように「建設工事」の定義が広く定められていることから、近年では、建設会社やデベロッパーだけでなく、その取締役個人に対してもDBP法に基づく請求が提起されるケースが増えています。事案の概要本件は、NSW州のMangertonに所在するタウンハウスに生じた建築上の欠陥を巡る事案です。管理組合（Owners Corporation）は、建設会社およびデベロッパーに加え、それぞれの取締役に対しても訴訟を提起し、DBP法第37条に基づく注意義務に違反したと主張しました。もっとも、裁判所は、両取締役について異なる結論に至りました。デベロッパーの取締役に責任が認められなかった理由裁判所は、デベロッパーの取締役について、建設工事への関与は極めて限定的であったと認定しました。例えば、現場検査に時折立ち会うことはあったものの、それはあくまで付随的な関与に過ぎませんでした。裁判所は、この取締役について、又は、上記のような役割を担うために雇用されていたことを示す十分な証拠は存在しないと判断しました。その結果、この取締役はDBP法上の「建設工事を行った者」には該当せず、管理組合の請求は退けられました。建設会社の取締役に責任が認められた理由これに対し、建設会社の取締役については事情が異なりました。同取締役は建設会社の指名監督者（Nominated Supervisor）であり、建設工事を監督していたことについて当事者間に争いはありませんでした。そのため裁判所は、この取締役がDBP法上の注意義務を負うことを前提に、その義務に違反したかどうかを検討しました。同検討をする上で裁判所は、欠陥を一括して判断するのではなく、個々の欠陥ごとに証拠を精査しました。その結果、一部の欠陥については、取締役が適切に現場を監督し、定期的な点検・確認を行っていれば容易に発見できたはずであるとして、注意義務違反が認められましたが、その他の欠陥については、仮に適切な監督を行っていたとしても発見できたとは認められないとして、これらについては取締役の責任は否定されました。実務上のポイント本判決から得られる重要な実務上の示唆は次のとおりです。まとめ本判決は、DBP法に基づく取締役の個人責任は、「取締役であること」ではなく、「実際に何をしていたのか」によって判断されることを改めて示した重要な判例です。そのため、DBP法に基づく請求を提起する場合も、これを防御する場合も、取締役の日常的な業務内容、現場への関与の程度、意思決定権限、監督責任の有無などを裏付ける具体的な証拠が、極めて重要となります。もっとも、本判決は個別事案における事実認定に基づく第一審判決であり、これによってDBP法における役員等の責任範囲に関する法理が最終的に確立されたものと理解することは適切ではありません。今後、控訴審における判断や他の裁判例の蓄積により、その解釈が発展又は変更される可能性も十分に考えられます。そのため、現時点では、本判決はDBP法の適用範囲を考える上で重要な指針ではあるものの、将来にわたり確立した法理として扱うのではなく、今後の判例の動向を注視する必要があります。

詳しく見る

契約に関する紛争,会社更生、会社清算、破産,契約書・商業契約全般,債権回収、債権行使及び差し押さえ

2026年3月3日

Debt Recovery in Australia

Debt recovery is rarely a straightforward exercise. In the current economic climate, businesses and individuals frequently encounter difficulties in recovering outstanding accounts. This can result in interrupted cash flow and heightened financial pressure.

詳しく見る

契約に関する紛争,法人税および個人税に関するアドバイス,コーポレートガバナンス

2026年2月27日

AML/CTF Reforms – What Existing Reporting Entities Need to Do before 31 March 2026

1. Overview of the Reforms Significant changes to Australia’s Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing (AML/CTF) regime are taking effect under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Act 2024 (the Amendment Act) and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Rules 2025 (the Rules). These reforms represent a fundamental shift toward an outcomes-based, risk-oriented framework, aligned with international standards set by the Financial Action Task Force.

詳しく見る

契約に関する紛争,異議申し立て,契約書・商業契約全般

2025年9月26日

小規模事業者再編制度（Small Business Restructuring）

小規模事業者再編制度（Small Business Restructuring） 2021年に導入された小規模事業者再編制度（Small Business Restructuring＝SBR）は、オーストラリア全土の小規模事業者、特に近年の経済低迷の影響を受けた企業にとって、会社清算に代わる重要な選択肢となっています。特にファミリービジネスを含む小規模企業の事業継続を支援するために設計されたSBRは、企業が営業を続けながら、法的に財務状況をリセットできる仕組みです。事業継続のための法的手段 SBRは、債務超過に直面した小規模事業者が、従来の清算手続きによる会社閉鎖を回避できるように設けられました。 SBRを利用することで、該当企業は債権者に対して再編計画を提案し、会社法（Corporations Act）に基づき、債務の削減や免除を求めることが可能です。このプロセスにより、企業は営業を継続しながら、法的に整理された形で財務問題に対処できます。利用資格と手続き SBRを利用するには、総債務額が100万ドル以下であり、未払いの従業員賃金や年金（superannuation）は含まれていないことが条件になります。 SBRの実行には債権者の承認が必要です。債権者の投票権は貸している金額によって決まり、債務全体の51％以上を持つ債権者が最終決定権を持つことになります。利用増加とその影響 ASICの最新データによると、SBRの申請件数は大幅に増加しており、昨年は約3,000件が債権者に提示されました。この増加は、SBRの認知度向上と、多くの小規模事業者が厳しい経営環境に直面していることを反映しています。特に飲食業界は大きな打撃を受けており、同業界の10社に1社が昨年清算されました。多くの再編計画では、債務額が20万〜40万ドルの範囲で、債務の最大80％の免除を債権者に求めています。 SBRの約80％が承認されているのも注目すべき点です。オーストラリア税務局（ATO）の役割 SBR案件の93％に関与しているオーストラリア税務局（ATO）は、最大の債権者(GST) として重要な役割を果たしています。 ATOはこれまでに約2,500件のSBR計画を承認しており、2024-25会計年度3月時点では、ATOが債権者となった再編計画の約80％に賛成票を投じています。宿泊業および飲食業（カフェ、レストラン、テイクアウトサービスを含む）は、SBR全体の22％を占めています。 ATOの関与が大きいため、再編計画の可否はほとんどの場合、ATOの判断に左右されます。 ATOが再編計画に賛成すれば、他の小口債権者もその計画に組み込まれる形となります。制度のセーフガードと除外規定制度の健全性を保つため、過去7年以内に清算や再編に関与した取締役がいる企業は、SBRの申請資格がありません。

詳しく見る

契約に関する紛争,労働法訴訟,裁判に代わる紛争解決（ADR）,契約書・商業契約全般

2025年9月17日

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and International Arbitration

International arbitration has long been valued for its flexibility, neutrality, and adaptability. In recent years, however, the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) has introduced a new set of opportunities and challenges that are likely to reshape arbitral practice. Unlike earlier waves of technological change, AI has a particularly pervasive impact: it is capable of touching almost every stage of the arbitral lifecycle; from pre-dispute planning and arbitrator selection to evidentiary and document review, hearings, award drafting, and enforcement.

詳しく見る

契約に関する紛争,企業アドバイザリー、M ＆ A,法人税および個人税に関するアドバイス,裁判に代わる紛争解決（ADR）,契約書・商業契約全般,コーポレートガバナンス,コンプライアンスおよびアドバイザリーサービス

2025年8月13日

Ad hoc and Institutional Arbitration

Arbitration is an increasingly preferred alternative to traditional litigation, particularly in commercial and international disputes. For businesses engaged in cross-border transactions, especially within the Asia-Pacific region, choosing between institutional and ad hoc arbitration can significantly influence the efficiency, cost and enforceability of dispute resolution. This article outlines key differences and practical considerations to help parties make informed decisions.

詳しく見る