Each state has its own Act, its own timeframes, and its own quirks. This guide covers the four jurisdictions Sopal supports — Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia — so you know where you stand before the clock starts running.
General information only — not legal advice. This page provides an overview of Australian security of payment legislation for educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. The Acts are amended from time to time, timeframes differ between states, and application to your specific circumstances will depend on the facts. You should confirm the current version of the relevant Act and consult a qualified construction lawyer before acting on any of this information.
Security of payment (SOP) legislation is a statutory framework that gives contractors and subcontractors in the building and construction industry a right to recover progress payments without having to litigate through the courts. The idea is simple: work should be paid for promptly. Cash flow is the lifeblood of construction businesses, and disputes over whether a payment is owed should not be allowed to derail a project or send a subcontractor into insolvency while the merits are argued over years of litigation.
Each Australian state and territory has enacted its own version of security of payment legislation. The Acts share a common architecture — statutory right to progress payments, payment claims, payment schedules, and fast-track adjudication — but they differ in important ways: who they cover, how timeframes are structured, how disputes are resolved, and what happens if a party defaults. Practitioners who work across jurisdictions need to be familiar with those differences.
Sopal covers Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. The sections below explain the Act in each of those jurisdictions.
Queensland's security of payment regime is governed by the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (the "BIF Act"). The BIF Act replaced the now-repealed Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004, carrying forward many familiar concepts while strengthening enforcement, introducing project trust accounts, and consolidating licensing and subcontracting protections.
The BIF Act applies to construction contracts for the carrying out of construction work, or the supply of related goods and services, in Queensland. "Construction work" is defined broadly in the Act and captures most work on structures — including buildings, roads, pipelines and structures ancillary to them. The supply of related goods and services includes things like architectural, engineering, design, surveying, and project management services where they are connected to construction work.
The BIF Act applies to written and oral contracts alike, though the practical ability to make a claim is obviously easier where the contract terms are in writing. Certain residential construction contracts where the principal is an individual who intends to occupy the dwelling may fall outside the Act's scope — legal advice should be obtained if the nature of the contract or the parties is unclear.
One of the most significant features of the BIF Act that distinguishes it from earlier Queensland legislation — and from the Acts in other states — is the project trust account regime. Certain head contractors and subcontractors holding money on behalf of others are required to hold those funds in a dedicated trust account with an approved financial institution, keeping beneficiaries' money separate from the contractor's own funds. The regime has been rolled out progressively and applies to contracts above a prescribed threshold. Breach of the trust account obligations carries significant penalties.
Queensland has an authorised nominating authority (ANA) model. A claimant who has served a payment claim and received an unsatisfactory payment schedule (or no payment schedule) can apply to an ANA for adjudication. The ANA appoints a registered adjudicator. The adjudicator then considers the payment claim and any adjudication response and issues a binding determination. Adjudication determinations in Queensland can be registered as judgments of a court and enforced accordingly.
Sopal's adjudication decision database holds 7,300+ Queensland adjudication decisions in full text — searchable by keyword, section reference, adjudicator, date range, and outcome. Learn more about Sopal's adjudication search.
New South Wales was the first Australian jurisdiction to enact security of payment legislation, and the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW SOP Act) remains the model that influenced legislation in every other state. It has been amended several times since commencement, with significant amendments enacted in 2018 taking effect progressively and fundamentally reshaping several aspects of the scheme.
The NSW Act applies to construction contracts — whether written, oral, or a combination of both — under which one party undertakes to carry out construction work or supply related goods and services for another party. Construction work is defined broadly and includes building, alteration, repair, restoration, maintenance, extension, demolition or dismantling of structures, as well as related civil engineering and excavation works. Related goods and services include materials, plant, equipment, and professional services connected to construction work.
Residential building contracts where the principal resides in (or intends to reside in) the dwelling may be excluded. Practitioners should check the current provisions of the Act and seek advice where the residential exclusion may apply.
The NSW Act gives a person who carries out construction work or supplies related goods and services a statutory entitlement to receive a progress payment. This entitlement arises from the Act itself, not solely from the contract — meaning parties cannot contract out of the regime. Any term of a contract that purports to exclude, modify, or restrict the operation of the Act is void to that extent.
The NSW reforms that followed the Murray Review — including the introduction of the retentions trust scheme and changes to payment claim and schedule timeframes — reflect an ongoing legislative effort to close gaps that had been identified in the earlier regime. Anyone working regularly in NSW construction payments should keep up with the current version of the Act and the associated regulations.
NSW uses an authorised nominating authority model similar to Queensland. A claimant who is unpaid — either because no payment schedule was served, or because the scheduled amount is less than the claimed amount — may apply for adjudication through a nominating authority. The adjudicator's determination is binding. A respondent who fails to pay an adjudicated amount within the required time faces significant consequences, including the ability of the claimant to suspend work.
Sopal's AI case-law research covers NSW adjudication decisions and court cases interpreting the NSW Act. Learn more about Sopal's AI research tool.
Victoria's security of payment scheme is established by the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic SOP Act). Victoria closely followed New South Wales when enacting its legislation, and the two Acts share a broadly similar structure. However, there are important differences — particularly in relation to timeframes, the treatment of reference dates, and adjudicator appointment procedures — that mean practitioners cannot simply assume NSW practice maps onto the Victorian regime.
Like the NSW Act, the Victorian legislation applies to construction contracts for the carrying out of construction work, or the supply of related goods and services, in Victoria. The definitional framework is broadly similar to NSW — construction work is defined to include a wide range of building, civil engineering and related activities, and the related goods and services definition captures materials, plant and professional services connected to the work.
Domestic residential building contracts where the owner is a natural person who resides in (or intends to reside in) the property may fall outside the scope of the Act. The precise application of this exclusion depends on the current Act provisions and the specific facts.
Victoria has maintained the core architecture of the East Coast model — statutory right to progress payments, reference dates, payment claims, payment schedules, and adjudication — while developing its own body of case law interpreting the Victorian provisions. Decisions of the Victorian Supreme Court (including the Court of Appeal) on the Vic SOP Act are an important source of authority for practitioners operating in that state.
One feature of the Victorian scheme that practitioners should be aware of is the treatment of "excluded amounts" — certain matters that an adjudicator is not permitted to consider. The definition of excluded amounts has been the subject of significant litigation and the case law is important to understand for anyone preparing or responding to an adjudication in Victoria.
Victoria also uses a nominating authority model. A claimant who has served a valid payment claim and is dissatisfied with the response — or has received no payment schedule — may apply for adjudication. Victorian adjudication timeframes are set out in the Act and regulations, and should be confirmed against the current legislation before any claim or response is prepared.
Sopal's AI case-law research covers Victorian decisions interpreting the Vic SOP Act. See how Sopal's research tool works.
South Australia enacted the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2009 (SA SOP Act) following the pattern established by the East Coast states. The SA Act establishes the same essential framework — statutory entitlement to progress payments, payment claims, payment schedules, and adjudication — but again with differences in timeframes, procedure, and scope that make it important to engage with the South Australian legislation directly rather than assuming it mirrors any other state.
The SA Act applies to construction contracts entered into in South Australia, or for the carrying out of construction work in South Australia, or for the supply of related goods and services in connection with construction work in South Australia. Construction work and related goods and services are defined broadly, consistent with the approach in other states.
As with other jurisdictions, certain residential construction arrangements may fall outside the Act's scope. South Australia's approach to residential exclusions should be confirmed against the current Act provisions.
South Australia was a relatively late adopter of security of payment legislation compared to the East Coast states, and in drafting the SA Act the legislature was able to take account of experience and case law that had accumulated in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. The SA Act broadly follows the East Coast template while incorporating some South Australian-specific provisions.
One distinction practitioners should be aware of is that the adjudication landscape in South Australia differs from the East Coast states in terms of the volume of adjudication activity and the developing body of South Australian case law. For some issues, practitioners may look to decisions from other jurisdictions for persuasive guidance, though the courts in other states have noted that their Acts are not identical and cross-jurisdictional authority should be applied with care.
South Australia's adjudication procedure follows the same basic model as other states: a claimant who has served a payment claim and is not satisfied with the response can apply for adjudication. The SA Act specifies how adjudicators are appointed, the timeframes for submissions, and how determinations are enforced. Timeframes under the SA Act should be confirmed against the current legislation.
Sopal Projects supports payment claim and payment schedule workflows for South Australian construction contracts, including a due-date calculator calibrated to the SA legislation. Learn more about Sopal Projects.
While each state's Act has its own provisions and nuances, all four share a common conceptual vocabulary. Understanding these core concepts is the foundation for working effectively with any Australian security of payment regime.
The cornerstone of every SOP Act is a statutory right to receive a progress payment for construction work carried out or related goods and services supplied under a construction contract. This right exists independently of the contract — it arises from the legislation. Parties cannot contract out of it. A term in a contract that attempts to prevent a party from making a payment claim, or that conditions the right to payment on something that would defeat the Act's purpose, is void to the extent of the inconsistency.
This is one of the most important protections the legislation provides. Even if a contract contains provisions that might otherwise prevent or delay payment — for example, "pay when paid" clauses, or conditions precedent to payment that have not been satisfied — the statutory entitlement still exists and can be pursued through the Act's mechanisms.
A progress payment becomes claimable on a "reference date" — the point in time from which a claimant is entitled to make a payment claim. Reference dates are typically set by the contract (for example, the last day of each calendar month, or upon achieving a specified milestone). If the contract does not fix reference dates, the Acts provide default reference date provisions. Understanding when a reference date arises is critical, because a payment claim served otherwise than on or after a reference date may not be a valid claim under the Act.
The reference date concept has generated significant case law, particularly in Queensland and New South Wales. Questions about whether multiple claims can be served for the same reference date, and what happens to unclaimed reference dates, have been litigated extensively.
A payment claim is the formal document a claimant serves on the respondent to invoke the Act's payment regime. To be a valid payment claim under a given Act, the document must satisfy the requirements of that Act — which typically include: identifying the relevant construction contract, describing the work or services to which the claim relates, and stating the amount of the claimed payment.
Different Acts impose different formal requirements for payment claims, and some states require the claim to include an endorsement identifying it as a payment claim under the relevant Act. Failure to satisfy the formal requirements can render a purported payment claim invalid, which can have serious consequences for a claimant who has allowed other deadlines to pass in reliance on the claim.
Sopal's payment claim review tool analyses a claim document for compliance with the relevant Act's requirements and highlights potential issues. See how payment claim review works.
Once a valid payment claim is served, the respondent (the party who must pay) has a limited time to respond with a payment schedule. A payment schedule must identify the payment claim it responds to, and state the amount the respondent proposes to pay. If the respondent proposes to pay less than the claimed amount — or nothing at all — the payment schedule must state the reasons why.
The consequences of failing to serve a payment schedule in time, or of serving an inadequate schedule, are severe. A respondent who does not serve a payment schedule by the deadline loses the right to participate in adjudication on issues not raised in a schedule (in some states), may lose the ability to defend certain aspects of the claim, and faces statutory liability for the full claimed amount. In some states, a claimant can obtain a court judgment for the claimed amount simply on the basis that no payment schedule was served.
Sopal's payment schedule review tool and payment schedule builder assist respondents in preparing timely, compliant responses. See payment schedule review.
Each Act prescribes — or incorporates from the contract — a due date by which a scheduled payment must be made. Where payment is not made by the due date, the claimant is entitled to interest on the overdue amount. The rates and calculation methodologies differ between Acts. Sopal's due-date calculator and interest calculator handle these computations for all four supported jurisdictions. Explore the due-date calculator.
Adjudication is the fast-track dispute resolution mechanism at the heart of all four Acts. If a payment claim is unpaid — either because no payment schedule was served, or because the scheduled amount is less than the claimed amount and the respondent has not paid the scheduled amount — the claimant can apply to an adjudicator for a binding determination.
Adjudication is intentionally quick. Strict timeframes govern when the application must be made, how long the respondent has to lodge a response, and when the adjudicator must deliver a determination. The adjudicator considers the payment claim, the contract, the payment schedule (if any), the adjudication application, and any adjudication response, and issues a determination stating how much (if anything) is payable and when.
Adjudication determinations are binding, but they are not final — they do not finally determine the parties' rights under the contract. A party who believes the adjudicator reached the wrong answer on the merits may still pursue those rights through arbitration or litigation. However, the determination is enforceable in the meantime, and courts have been reluctant to grant stays of enforcement except in narrow circumstances.
The adjudicator's jurisdiction is constrained by the Act and by what was raised in the payment claim and payment schedule. The extent to which an adjudicator can consider matters not raised in those documents — including set-off claims and cross-claims — varies between jurisdictions and has been extensively litigated.
The table below summarises high-level features of each Act. Timeframes are not reproduced here — they differ materially between states, have been amended at various points, and must be confirmed against the current legislation for your specific matter.
| Feature | QLD — BIF Act 2017 | NSW — SOP Act 1999 | VIC — SOP Act 2002 | SA — SOP Act 2009 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full Act name | Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 | Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 | Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 | Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2009 |
| Statutory right to progress payments | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Payment claim mechanism | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Payment schedule required | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Fast-track adjudication | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Adjudicator appointment | Via authorised nominating authority (ANA) | Via authorised nominating authority | Via nominating authority | Via nominating authority |
| Project trust accounts | Yes (phased rollout, threshold-based) | Retention trust scheme (separate legislation) | No equivalent general scheme | No equivalent general scheme |
| Parties cannot contract out | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Timeframes | Varies — see the Act | Varies — see the Act | Varies — see the Act | Varies — see the Act |
| Residential exclusions | Applies in certain cases — confirm | Applies in certain cases — confirm | Applies in certain cases — confirm | Applies in certain cases — confirm |
| Sopal coverage | 7,300+ adjudication decisions; AI research; Projects tools | AI case-law research; Projects tools | AI case-law research; Projects tools | Projects tools |
Always confirm the current version of the relevant Act before acting. Acts are amended from time to time and regulations made under them can also affect key parameters.
Navigate the legislative frameworks across four jurisdictions with Sopal's AI research tool, 7,300+ Queensland adjudication decisions, adjudicator statistics, and auto-drafted submissions. Cut research time on payment disputes and adjudication proceedings.
Know your rights under the Act for your state. Use Sopal Projects to review payment claims and schedules, build compliant documents, and calculate due dates and interest — across QLD, NSW, VIC and SA.
Payment claim and schedule timeframes are unforgiving. Sopal keeps you on top of reference dates, response deadlines, and interest calculations so no critical date is missed.
Advise internal stakeholders on SOP rights and obligations across multiple projects and jurisdictions. Sopal Research gives you fast access to the case law and adjudication decisions that matter.
Queensland has one of the most active adjudication regimes in the country. Sopal holds the full text of over 7,300 adjudication decisions, searchable by keyword, reference date issue, adjudicator, and more. Understand how adjudicators have approached specific BIF Act provisions before you prepare your next claim or response.
Sopal Projects gives contractors, subcontractors, and their advisers a set of purpose-built tools for managing the payment claim cycle. From reviewing an existing claim to building a new schedule and calculating what interest is owed, all four supported Acts are covered.
No. All four Acts — in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia — contain provisions rendering void any term of a contract that purports to exclude, modify, or restrict a party's rights under the Act. This means that even if a contract says something like "no payment claim can be served" or "payment is only due on practical completion", the statutory right to make a payment claim and pursue adjudication still exists. The legislation's protections cannot be bargained away.
Generally yes. All four Acts apply to both written and oral construction contracts. However, the practical ability to enforce rights under an oral contract — establishing what the terms were, what work was agreed to, and at what price — can be significantly more difficult than under a written contract. This is particularly relevant to establishing reference dates, the claimed amount, and the scope of work. While an oral contract can give rise to valid payment claims, the practical difficulties of proof mean that written contracts are strongly advisable.
The consequences of failing to serve a payment schedule — or of serving one late — are serious. In general terms, a respondent who does not serve a payment schedule by the relevant deadline loses significant rights. In some states, the claimant can apply to a court for judgment for the claimed amount on the basis that no schedule was served, without the respondent being able to raise any defence. In adjudication, a respondent who didn't serve a payment schedule may be restricted in the grounds they can raise in an adjudication response. The precise consequences differ between Acts and should be confirmed against the relevant legislation.
A reference date is the date on or after which a claimant is entitled to serve a payment claim. Reference dates are typically set by the contract — for example, "the last day of each calendar month" — or arise by default under the relevant Act if the contract does not fix them. A payment claim served before a reference date has arisen may not be a valid payment claim under the Act, which could deprive the claimant of the protections the Act provides. Reference dates have been the subject of extensive litigation and are a critical concept to understand before preparing or responding to a payment claim.
No. An adjudication determination under any of the four Acts is binding and enforceable, but it is not a final determination of the parties' rights under the contract. The Acts expressly preserve the right of either party to pursue the disputed amount in arbitration or litigation — sometimes described as "pay now, argue later." The practical effect is that the respondent must pay the determined amount promptly, but if they believe the adjudicator was wrong they can still pursue the issue through a final forum. Courts have consistently upheld this framework and are generally reluctant to grant stays of enforcement of adjudication determinations pending any subsequent proceedings.
No. The timeframes in each Act — for serving payment schedules, making adjudication applications, lodging adjudication responses, and delivering determinations — differ materially between states and have been amended at various points. Sopal's due-date calculator is calibrated to each jurisdiction's current provisions, but users should always confirm the relevant timeframe against the current text of the Act for their matter. Missing a deadline under the SOP legislation can have irreversible consequences.
Each Act contains exclusions (or carve-outs) for certain types of residential construction, but the precise scope of the residential exclusion differs between states. Generally, where the principal to a construction contract is a natural person who resides in (or intends to reside in) the dwelling being constructed, the Act may not apply. However, the details — including whether a particular arrangement is caught — must be confirmed against the current Act for the relevant state. If there is any doubt about whether a contract falls within or outside the residential exclusion, legal advice should be obtained before serving any payment claim or payment schedule.
Sopal is built for practitioners who work across QLD, NSW, VIC and SA. Sopal Research gives legal practitioners access to QLD adjudication decisions (7,300+) in full text, and AI-driven case law research spanning NSW, QLD and VIC. Sopal Projects provides payment claim and schedule tools — including due-date and interest calculators — calibrated to each of the four supported Acts. For practitioners who need both research and project tools, Sopal Plus combines both products at a reduced combined price. See pricing and plans.
Reminder: general information only. The content on this page is provided as general information about Australian security of payment legislation. It is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such. Legislation changes. Timeframes, formal requirements, and procedural rules differ between jurisdictions and have been amended at various points. You should always confirm the current version of the relevant Act for your jurisdiction and obtain advice from a qualified construction lawyer before acting. Nothing on this page creates a solicitor-client relationship.
7,300+ Queensland adjudication decisions. AI research across NSW, QLD and VIC. Payment tools for all four states. Start your 14-day free trial — no commitment required.
Start 14-day free trial