Check a payment claim against the Act and case law before you serve it or respond to it — across QLD, NSW, VIC and SA.
Spot defects in your own claim before the other side does. A fatal flaw in a payment claim can end the adjudication before it begins.
Understand which parts of a claim you are receiving are valid and which are potentially vulnerable — so your payment schedule targets the right ground.
QLD, NSW, VIC and SA each have their own Act with different content, timing and service requirements. The review is calibrated to whichever jurisdiction you select.
The review works through the elements that the SOP legislation requires a payment claim to satisfy — flagging each as clear, flagged for attention, or a potential issue that warrants legal advice.
Security of payment legislation across Australia grants claimants a statutory right to serve a payment claim and, if the amount is disputed or no payment schedule is given, to proceed to adjudication. That right is powerful — but it depends entirely on the payment claim itself being valid. A claim that does not comply with the relevant Act can be set aside by an adjudicator or, in some cases, by a court. Understanding what the Act demands is therefore not a technical nicety — it is the foundation of the entire claim.
While the specific requirements differ between QLD, NSW, VIC and SA (and you should always confirm the current Act for your jurisdiction, as these Acts have been amended at various points), the following categories of requirements appear across most jurisdictions.
A payment claim must identify, with sufficient certainty, the construction work or related goods and services to which the claim relates. This does not require a line-by-line breakdown in every case, but the claim must give the respondent enough information to understand what is being claimed and to formulate a payment schedule in response. Adjudication decisions and court judgments have grappled with how much detail is enough — and the answer tends to be contextual, depending on the nature of the work and the information already exchanged between the parties. Where a claim is vague or so compressed that the respondent cannot reasonably identify what work underpins each claimed amount, the claim may be held invalid.
The claim must state the amount claimed. There is no general requirement that the claim be broken down into precise line items for each element of work, but the amount must be expressed clearly. Where GST is included, the claim should make that clear. Some jurisdictions and some contract forms impose additional requirements around the presentation of amounts claimed.
Payment claims must relate to a reference date under the relevant Act. In general, a reference date is a date from which a claimant becomes entitled to make a claim — typically determined by the contract or, in its absence, by the Act itself. Serving a claim before the reference date has arisen, or serving more claims than the Act permits in a given period, are defects that can invalidate the claim entirely. Reference date rules have been a fertile source of dispute in the case law, and the position differs meaningfully between jurisdictions.
Several jurisdictions require a payment claim to be expressly stated to be a payment claim made under the Act (or words to that effect). QLD under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 has specific requirements about the form of the claim. NSW under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 similarly requires claims to identify themselves as payment claims under the Act. Failing to include the required statement — even on an otherwise correct claim — can be a ground for the claim to be held invalid.
A valid payment claim must be served on the respondent in a manner that complies with the Act and any applicable contract terms. Most Acts prescribe permissible methods of service (post, email, personal service and so on). Serving by a method not authorised by the Act or contract, or serving on the wrong party, can undermine the claim. Where the contract is silent on a service method, the Act's default rules apply.
Claims must be served within the timeframes the Act permits. These include both the need for a reference date to have arisen and, in some jurisdictions, a cap on how long after the reference date a claim can be served. In QLD the rules around timing have been amended — confirm the current position under the BIF Act. In NSW and VIC the timing rules have also evolved through amendment and case law. If a claim is served too late relative to the reference date, or before the reference date has arisen, it may be a nullity.
QLD has introduced additional requirements under the BIF Act that do not have direct equivalents in other jurisdictions. These include requirements around subcontractor statements and, in certain circumstances, retention trust reporting. Failing to provide a required supporting statement where one is needed can be a defect in the claim. These requirements make the QLD checklist more involved than in other jurisdictions, and claimants should ensure they understand what their particular contract and the Act require before serving.
Not every defect is fatal — but some are. Knowing which issues carry the most risk helps you prioritise what to fix before you serve, and what to raise when you respond.
The four Acts Sopal covers — QLD, NSW, VIC and SA — share a common architecture but diverge in important respects. The table below summarises the headline differences relevant to payment claim validity. These are general descriptions only: the Acts have been amended, and case law continues to develop the meaning of each provision. Always confirm the current position under the applicable Act.
| Requirement | QLD — BIF Act 2017 | NSW — SOP Act 1999 | VIC — SOP Act 2002 | SA — SOP Act 2009 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claim must state it is a payment claim under the Act | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Reference date basis | Contract or Act default (confirm current position) | Contract or Act default | Contract or Act default | Contract or Act default |
| Supporting / subcontractor statements | Required in certain circumstances | Required in certain circumstances (head contract claims over threshold) | Not generally required | Not generally required |
| Residential construction exclusion | Applies in some circumstances | Applies in some circumstances | Applies in some circumstances | Applies in some circumstances |
| Excluded contracts | Domestic building contracts in certain circumstances; others — confirm Act | Domestic building owner-occupied — confirm Act | Domestic building — confirm Act | Domestic building — confirm Act |
| Maximum number of claims per reference date | One claim per reference date | One claim per reference date | One claim per reference date | One claim per reference date |
The jurisdiction of the project governs which Act applies — not where the parties are incorporated or where the contract was signed. The location of the construction work determines which Act applies. This is a common source of confusion for parties operating across state lines. Sopal's Payment Claim Review requires you to select the jurisdiction at the outset so that the checklist, timing logic and legislative references are calibrated correctly.
Where a project spans multiple states — unusual in practice but possible for linear infrastructure — you should take specific legal advice about which Act governs the claim. Sopal does not handle multi-jurisdiction single-project scenarios; it operates on the assumption that one Act governs the relevant construction contract.
Before you serve a payment claim, run it through the review to confirm you have hit all the statutory requirements — so you are not handing the respondent a technical knock-out before adjudication gets started.
When you receive a payment claim, the review helps you assess whether the claim is valid on its face — which informs both your payment schedule and any decision about whether to raise a jurisdictional objection in adjudication.
CA and QS teams processing payment claims across multiple projects benefit from a consistent, structured approach that covers the legislative requirements for each jurisdiction — without needing to re-read the Act for every claim.
For practitioners advising on a SOP matter, the Payment Claim Review gives a structured first-pass checklist. Pair it with Sopal's AI case-law research for deeper analysis of live issues in the claim.
A payment claim review is one step in a broader SOP process. Understanding where it fits helps you use the tool effectively.
The process for a claimant typically runs: identify your reference date, draft your claim, review it for validity, serve it correctly on the respondent, then monitor the due date for a payment schedule or payment. If a payment schedule is not provided within the statutory period, or if the schedule does not respond to the full amount, you may be entitled to proceed to adjudication or, in some jurisdictions, to sue for the debt in a court of competent jurisdiction.
Sopal supports this process from drafting through to adjudication: the Payment Claim Builder helps you draft a compliant claim step by step; the Payment Claim Review checks it before you serve; and the Due Date Calculator helps you track when the respondent's payment schedule must be given.
When a payment claim arrives, you face a strict timetable to respond. Under each Act, the respondent must serve a payment schedule within the time allowed (the period differs by jurisdiction and may be modified by contract — always confirm the current position). The payment schedule must state the scheduled amount and, if it is less than the claimed amount, the reasons for withholding payment.
Before you invest in drafting a full payment schedule, it is worth understanding whether the payment claim has any validity defects that you might raise in adjudication. The Payment Claim Review flags the most common issues. If you identify a potential defect, take legal advice before deciding whether and how to raise it — how and when you raise a jurisdictional objection can affect whether you preserve your right to rely on it in the adjudication.
Once you have reviewed the claim, the Payment Schedule Review and Payment Schedule Builder help you prepare a compliant response.
The statutory language in the SOP Acts is relatively lean. A substantial body of case law — Supreme Court decisions, Court of Appeal decisions, and (in QLD's case) over 7,300 adjudication decisions in Sopal's database — has developed the meaning of each element. What counts as sufficient identification of work? When does a defect become fatal to the claim? Does a mistake in the amount or dates invalidate the whole claim or just part of it? These are the kinds of questions that courts and adjudicators have addressed repeatedly, and the answers are not always the same across jurisdictions.
Sopal's review flags the issues; where the legal position is uncertain or contested in the case law, the tool indicates that and suggests you seek further advice. The tool is not a substitute for legal advice on a live dispute — it is a structured starting point that helps you ask the right questions.
No. The Payment Claim Review checks the formal and statutory validity of the claim — whether it meets the requirements the Act imposes for a claim to be a valid payment claim. It does not assess the merits of the underlying dispute: whether the amounts claimed are actually owing, whether the respondent has valid grounds to withhold payment, or how an adjudicator is likely to assess the evidence. For the merits, you need Sopal's AI case-law research and, for a live dispute, legal advice.
That depends on the nature of the defect and the jurisdiction. Some defects are capable of being corrected before you serve — which is the ideal outcome of running the review at the draft stage. Other defects, if you have already served, may be jurisdictional in nature, meaning that an adjudicator may lack power to determine the adjudication application based on the invalid claim. Courts have grappled with which defects are "fatal" (depriving an adjudicator of jurisdiction) and which are mere irregularities that do not void the claim. The answer is not always clear-cut and has differed between jurisdictions and over time. Where the review flags a potential defect on a served claim, take legal advice before proceeding to adjudication.
Not necessarily — whether a supporting statement is required depends on the nature of the contract (head contract versus subcontract), the value of the claim, and the specific provisions of the BIF Act as it currently stands. The BIF Act has been amended and you should confirm the current requirements. Sopal's review will flag whether a supporting statement appears to be required based on the information you provide, but given the complexity of these requirements and the consequences of non-compliance, we recommend confirming the current position under the Act and seeking advice if you are unsure.
The SOP legislation in each jurisdiction excludes certain contracts — most commonly, contracts for residential building work where the owner is a natural person who intends to reside in the dwelling. These exclusions differ between jurisdictions and have been amended. Sopal's review covers construction contracts that fall within the SOP Acts. If there is any doubt about whether the Act applies to your contract, that is a threshold question that should be resolved before you serve a payment claim — and it is one on which you should take legal advice.
Yes. The review is just as useful for respondents as it is for claimants. If you have received a payment claim, running it through the review helps you identify potential validity issues that you might raise in your payment schedule or in adjudication. Keep in mind that the timing for your payment schedule response is strict — start the review as soon as the claim arrives.
The Payment Claim Builder guides you through drafting a new payment claim from scratch, prompting you for the information required by the Act at each step. The Payment Claim Review takes an existing claim (one you have drafted, or one you have received) and checks it against the statutory requirements — flagging any elements that appear missing, unclear, or potentially defective. In practice, many claimants use both: the Builder to draft and the Review as a final check before serving.
No. The Payment Claim Review is a structured checklist tool and is general information only — not legal advice. It is designed to help you identify issues and ask the right questions, not to substitute for advice from a lawyer with knowledge of your specific contract, facts, and jurisdiction. For complex claims, disputed matters, or where the review flags a potential defect, you should seek advice from a construction lawyer. The review is available as part of Sopal Projects and Sopal Plus.
The Payment Claim Review covers QLD (Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017), NSW (Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999), VIC (Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002), and SA (Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2009). You select the jurisdiction when you start a review. Note that Sopal's adjudication decision database covers Queensland only (7,300+ decisions); the AI case-law research covers QLD, NSW and VIC.
General information only. The content on this page is general information about security of payment legislation and is not legal advice. The law differs between jurisdictions and has been amended over time — always confirm the current position under the relevant Act for your jurisdiction. Nothing on this page should be relied upon as legal advice for any specific situation. If you have a live dispute or are unsure whether your claim or response is valid, seek advice from a qualified construction lawyer.
Start a 14-day free trial of Sopal Projects and run your first payment claim review today — across QLD, NSW, VIC and SA.
Start 14-day free trial