[co-author: Shanya Singh]
The Court of Appeal from NSW in Roberts Co (NSW) PTY LTD against Sharvain Fassades PTY LTD (administrators appointed) [2025] NSWCA 161 confirmed this under the Security Act of Construction and Construction Industry 1999 (NSW) (the act), A payment claim that is captured after business hours is still granted on the same day. Otherwise, no contractual term can be provided, e.g.
The dispute
The contract contained a clause that received after 5 p.m. on a business day, as he received on the next business day (at 9 a.m.) Intended clause). The respondent (Sharvain) a payment claim for the complainant (Roberts) at 7.18 p.m. on Friday, February 28, 2025. The main question was whether the payment claim was delivered on Friday or the following Monday after the law.
The effects of the answer to this time question were significant. This is because Roberts in accordance with Section 14 (4)) (b) of the law within the earlier times, which is necessary as part of the corresponding contract or 10 working days of payment of the payment claim, had to submit its payment plan. By failing to meet this time frame, the total amount would claim a due and paying guilt and enable Sharvain to apply for a judgment according to ยง 15 of the law.
Roberts provided his payment plan on Monday, March 17, 2025: More than 10 working days after Friday, February 28, 2025, but within 10 business days on Monday, March 3, 2025.
The dishes of the dishes
In the first instance in Sharvain Fassades Pty Ltd (administrators appointed) against Roberts Co (NSW) Pty Ltd. [2025] NSWSC 606, Stevenson J. This was because it was supposedly offered to change the operation of the law; While the law made it possible to serve a document at any time during a business day, the viewing clause set out to change this by believing that a business day ended at 5 p.m. Therefore, his honor came to the conclusion that the payment claim was delivered on February 28, 2025. This followed that Roberts' payment plan was not issued in time and Sharvain was able to apply for a judgment about the entire claim.
In the appeal procedure and on an accelerated basis, the Court of Apparge of the NSW achieved the same result, but for another reason.
Hammerschlag CJ in EQ (with which Griffiths agreed Aja and the judgment of Mchugh was essentially consistent) that the time frame for the output of a payment plan in Section 14 (4) (II) (II) (II) of the law should be calculated for the calculation of the law. According to the law, a document will be called up as sent by the sender and called up by the recipient. For the purposes of Section 14 (4) (4) (b) (II) of the law, Sharvain's payment claim was delivered on February 28, 2025.
Based on this reasoning, it was not necessary to deal with the highest judge whether the clause was valid or void or how much would be. This was due to the fact that according to Section 14 (4) (b) the deadline for providing a payment plan is the earlier time within the framework of the corresponding contract (March 17, 2025, if the tribunds are effective) or 10 working days after the reason for the payment claim (March 14, 2025, as explained above) is required. Regardless of whether the clause is effective or not, Roberts' payment plan was due on March 14, 2025 and was not available until then.
What does that mean for you?
The failure to cover the prescribed (and often tight) time frames within the framework of the law can lead to considerable consequences. An failure to meet the time frame for the serving days of a payment plan meant that the total amount applicable in the payment claim became a due and paying guilt.
For all parties that create and receive payment claims as part of the law, it is important to understand the service and time requirements within the framework of the law and take measures to ensure that they are fulfilled.
In this context, the Court of Appeal of the NSW has now given instructions that a day within the meaning of the law is a complete 24-hour day, regardless of how a day or a business day can be calculated as part of the corresponding contract. In Hammerschlag CJ in EQS words “,”The law does not recognize any factions one day and treats a day with twenty -four hours.
In view of the reasoning of the NSW Court of Appeal, it remains an open question whether a contractual provision that has the impact (actually or supposedly) has to rule out, change or restrict the operation of the law is invalid for the purposes of the law or for all purposes. This is waiting for a case in which the question must be answered. This will be seen.
[View source.]