Sopal's Payment Schedule Builder guides respondents through every element the SOP legislation requires: a scheduled amount, itemised withholding reasons against each part of the claim, and a record of the positions you are taking — before the deadline expires.
Each disputed line item in the payment claim gets its own withholding reason. The builder structures your response item by item so nothing falls through the gaps and the adjudicator can follow exactly what is in dispute.
The builder adapts its prompts and required fields to the Act that governs your contract — BIF Act (QLD), NSW, VIC or SA — so timing, mandatory content and the consequences of a defective schedule are all framed for your jurisdiction.
The payment schedule deadline is one of the hardest in construction law. Miss it and the scheduled amount becomes the claimed amount by default. Sopal surfaces the deadline prominently at the top of every schedule build.
A payment schedule is a respondent's only opportunity to dispute a payment claim within the statutory timeframe. Miss the deadline or provide an inadequate schedule and you may lose your right to challenge the amount at adjudication. Sopal keeps the build process structured so you serve a compliant, defensible schedule on time.
The legislation requires the schedule to indicate the reasons for withholding payment. A vague or generalised "we dispute the claim" is not sufficient. Sopal's builder walks you through each item in the claim and prompts you to record a specific reason for any amount withheld — producing a schedule the adjudicator can actually assess.
When a respondent receives a payment claim under Australian security of payment legislation, they are required to respond with a payment schedule within a strict timeframe. The schedule is the respondent's formal notice of how much they propose to pay and why they are withholding any amount. Getting it right — and getting it in on time — is critical.
The obligation to respond to a payment claim with a payment schedule arises on service of the claim. The time within which a payment schedule must be served is set by the relevant Act. Timeframes differ between jurisdictions and have been subject to amendment — always confirm the current deadline under the Act applicable to your contract. What is consistent across all jurisdictions is the consequence of missing the deadline: if no payment schedule is served in time, the respondent becomes liable to pay the full claimed amount and may lose the right to challenge it at adjudication.
Because the consequences are so significant, Sopal surfaces the payment schedule deadline prominently when you start a schedule build. The due date is calculated from the date of service of the payment claim you select — not from the date you open Sopal. Always double-check the claim's service date so the deadline calculation is accurate.
The schedule must identify the amount the respondent proposes to pay (the "scheduled amount"). This can be the full claimed amount (if the respondent accepts the whole claim), a lesser amount (if the respondent disputes part of the claim), or nil (if the respondent disputes the entire claim). The scheduled amount must be clearly stated — it is the figure that becomes payable if the claimant does not pursue adjudication, and it is the starting point for any adjudicator assessing the respondent's position.
If the scheduled amount is less than the claimed amount, the schedule must indicate the reasons for withholding payment. This is the element most often challenged by claimants in adjudication and most often the subject of judicial consideration in payment schedule disputes. The core question is whether the reasons are adequate — that is, whether they tell the claimant enough about the respondent's position to allow the claimant and any adjudicator to understand what is in dispute and why.
A schedule that simply asserts "the work was defective" or "the amount is disputed" without more may be treated as an inadequate schedule, with potentially the same consequences as providing no schedule at all. The better approach is to address each disputed item in the claim with a specific, articulated reason: identifying the item, the amount withheld against it, and the factual or contractual basis for the withholding.
Sopal's builder is structured around this principle. Rather than asking you to draft a single free-text statement, it guides you through the claimed items one by one and prompts you to address each one specifically.
A respondent may seek to withhold amounts on the basis of set-offs, counterclaims, or cross-claims — for example, liquidated damages, the cost of rectifying defective work, or amounts owed under a different part of the contract. Whether and how these can be raised in a payment schedule (and then relied upon in adjudication) is one of the more contested areas of SOP law and differs between jurisdictions. The position in Queensland under the BIF Act differs in material respects from the position in NSW, VIC and SA. If you intend to withhold on the basis of a set-off or counterclaim, you should consider obtaining legal advice on whether your jurisdiction's Act permits it and how it should be framed in the schedule.
Once the payment schedule is served, the claimant has a choice. If the scheduled amount equals the claimed amount, the respondent must pay the scheduled amount by the due date. If the scheduled amount is less than the claimed amount (or no schedule was served), the claimant can: (a) accept the scheduled amount and pursue the balance through other means; (b) apply for adjudication; or (c) in some circumstances, pursue recovery of the amount as a debt in court. The specific options and timeframes for doing so differ by jurisdiction.
In an adjudication, the adjudicator assesses the claim and the schedule. Critically, in most jurisdictions the respondent is confined to the reasons they gave in the payment schedule — they generally cannot raise new reasons or new grounds of dispute at the adjudication stage. This makes the content of the payment schedule extremely important: the reasons you give (or fail to give) in the schedule may be the only grounds you are permitted to rely on.
The table below summarises key structural features of the payment schedule requirements across the four Acts supported by Sopal. Timeframes and procedural details are indicative only — always verify against the current Act for your jurisdiction.
| Jurisdiction | Legislation | Scheduled amount required | Reasons required if withholding | Respondent confined to schedule reasons at adjudication |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Queensland | Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 | Yes | Yes | Generally yes — confirm under Act |
| New South Wales | Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 | Yes | Yes | Generally yes — confirm under Act |
| Victoria | Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 | Yes | Yes | Generally yes — confirm under Act |
| South Australia | Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2009 | Yes | Yes | Confirm under current Act |
This table is for general orientation only and is not a substitute for reading the current legislation. The detail of what is required — and what the consequences of a defective schedule are — differs by jurisdiction and has been the subject of judicial consideration. Confirm the current position under the Act that applies to your contract before serving your schedule.
The payment schedule is not a holding document — it is a substantive legal response that determines the scope of any subsequent adjudication. Respondents who underestimate its importance can find themselves in a significantly weaker position when an adjudicator is appointed. The main failure modes are:
If the payment schedule is not served within the statutory timeframe, the claimant may be entitled to recover the full claimed amount without the respondent having any opportunity to dispute it at adjudication. The timeframe is strict and, in most jurisdictions, cannot be extended by agreement after the fact. The only protection against this outcome is to have systems in place that ensure incoming payment claims are identified, escalated, and responded to immediately.
Courts and adjudicators in all jurisdictions have considered what constitutes adequate reasons for withholding payment. A consistent theme in the case law is that reasons must be more than a bare assertion. Describing every disputed item as "incomplete" or "defective" without specifics, or withholding an amount without identifying which item it relates to, may result in those reasons being given limited weight — or the schedule being treated as inadequate for the amounts to which the reasons apply.
If the schedule does not address a particular item in the claim, the adjudicator may assess that item on the basis of the claimant's submissions alone. The respondent's failure to engage with part of the claim in the schedule is not something that can usually be remedied at adjudication. Sopal's builder is structured around the claimed items so that each one is addressed in the schedule.
In most jurisdictions, the respondent at adjudication is limited to the reasons given in the payment schedule. If you wish to argue at adjudication that work was defective, that the amount claimed exceeds the contract price, or that a set-off applies, that ground generally needs to have been raised in the schedule. A respondent who omitted a ground from the schedule — even through inadvertence — may find they cannot rely on it. This makes the drafting of the schedule a strategically important step, not an administrative one.
If you have received a payment claim and want to work through it before building your schedule, see also the Payment Schedule Review tool, which helps you assess the claim and identify the grounds on which you may wish to respond.
When a head contractor serves a payment claim on you as principal, you need a compliant payment schedule served on time. The builder ensures you address every item in the claim and record your reasons in a structured, defensible way before the deadline expires.
Subcontract payment claims arrive at project pace — often multiple claims across multiple projects simultaneously. The builder gives your commercial team a repeatable, structured process to respond to each claim within the statutory timeframe without missing reasons or disputed items.
If you assess and recommend responses to payment claims on behalf of principals or head contractors, the builder structures your assessment into a format that can be served directly as the payment schedule — or provided to the respondent for approval and service.
Where legal teams review payment schedules before service, the builder produces a structured draft that makes review faster. Each item is addressed with its withholding reason, so the review is focused on the substance rather than the format.
The Payment Schedule Builder sits within Sopal Projects, which covers the full payment-claim and payment-schedule lifecycle from claim receipt through to adjudication preparation.
If you receive a valid payment claim under the relevant SOP Act and do not serve a payment schedule within the statutory timeframe, the consequences are significant. In most jurisdictions, the claimant becomes entitled to recover the full claimed amount as a debt — without the respondent having any opportunity to dispute the amount at adjudication. The specific consequences and timeframes differ by jurisdiction and have been amended over time. Always confirm the current position under the Act applicable to your contract. If you have missed or are at risk of missing a deadline, seek legal advice immediately.
The legislation requires the schedule to indicate the reasons for withholding payment. Courts and adjudicators have considered this requirement extensively and have consistently held that vague or generalised reasons are inadequate. Reasons that simply state "work is incomplete" or "the amount is disputed" without identifying which items are disputed and why may be given limited weight, or may result in those parts of the schedule being treated as no schedule at all. The better approach is to address each disputed item with a specific reason that identifies the item, the amount withheld, and the factual or contractual basis for the withholding. Sopal's builder is structured around this principle — it guides you through each claimed item and prompts you for specific reasons.
In most jurisdictions, no. The respondent at adjudication is generally confined to the reasons set out in the payment schedule. If you wish to argue at adjudication that work was defective, that the amount claimed exceeds the contract price, or that a counterclaim or set-off applies, that ground generally needs to have been raised in the schedule. A ground omitted from the schedule — even through inadvertence — may not be available at adjudication. This makes the content of the payment schedule a strategically important decision, not just an administrative step. The specific rules on what the respondent can raise at adjudication differ by jurisdiction and should be confirmed under the current Act applicable to your contract.
Defective work is one of the most common grounds for withholding payment in a payment schedule. Whether and how it can be raised — and the evidentiary support you need — depends on the specific contract, the nature of the defect, and the jurisdiction. In most jurisdictions, defective work can be raised as a reason for withholding, but the reason should be specific: identify the item of work, describe the alleged defect, and indicate the amount withheld against it. A bare reference to "defective work" without more may be given limited weight by an adjudicator. If the defective work issue is significant and contested, consider obtaining advice from a construction lawyer before serving the schedule.
Whether a respondent can raise a set-off or counterclaim in a payment schedule — and have it considered by an adjudicator — is one of the more contested areas of SOP law in Australia. The position differs materially between jurisdictions. In Queensland under the BIF Act, the position on set-offs differs from the NSW and VIC Acts in important respects. Before including a set-off or counterclaim as a reason for withholding, you should confirm whether your jurisdiction's Act permits it to be raised, and how it should be framed. This is an area where legal advice is worth obtaining.
The payment schedule deadline is the number of business days after service of the payment claim within which the respondent must serve the schedule. The specific timeframe differs between jurisdictions and has been amended in some states — always confirm the current deadline under the Act applicable to your contract. Sopal calculates the deadline from the service date of the payment claim you enter, and surfaces it prominently at the top of the schedule build. The Due Date Calculator can also help you map out all the key dates once you have the service date.
The Payment Schedule Builder is for respondents who need to draft and serve a payment schedule in response to a payment claim they have received. The Payment Schedule Review tool is for claimants (or their advisers) who have received a payment schedule from a respondent and need to assess it — for example, to identify which items have been accepted, which have been disputed, whether the reasons given are adequate, and whether to proceed to adjudication. Both tools are included in Sopal Projects.
Yes — working through the payment claim carefully before you build your schedule is important. You need to understand exactly what is being claimed, for which items, and on what basis, before you can give specific withholding reasons against each item. The Payment Claim Review tool helps you assess an incoming payment claim systematically — checking it against the statutory requirements, identifying the claimed items, and flagging anything that may be relevant to your response. Using the Review tool first and then the Schedule Builder gives you a coherent, documented workflow from claim receipt through to schedule service.
No. The Payment Schedule Builder guides you through the structural elements the legislation requires and prompts you to provide specific withholding reasons against each claimed item. It does not give you a legal opinion on whether your reasons are adequate, whether a particular ground is available to you, or whether your schedule will withstand challenge. For anything involving significant amounts, contested facts, or complex legal questions — including set-offs, counterclaims, or claims of invalid payment claims — you should consider obtaining advice from a construction lawyer. This page and the Sopal platform are general information only, not legal advice.
This page is general information only and is not legal advice. Security of payment legislation differs between Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, and has been subject to amendment. The content above describes the general structure of payment schedule requirements under those Acts but does not address every requirement, exception or circumstance. Timeframes, procedural requirements, and the consequences of a defective or late payment schedule depend on the specific Act, your contract, and your individual facts. Before serving a payment schedule — particularly where significant amounts or complex disputes are involved — you should consider obtaining advice from a lawyer with experience in construction law and security of payment. See also Sopal Legislation for links to the relevant Acts.
Start a 14-day free trial and build a compliant, itemised payment schedule — with reasons against every disputed line — before the deadline expires.
Start 14-day free trial