In Reform Projects Pty Ltd v Burge St Developments Pty Ltd [2026] NSWDC 96, Cole DCJ upheld Reform's claim for $260k security under a construction contract as a statutory debt under s 15(2) of SOPA in circumstances where payment claims under the contract had been sent to, and responded by, the Principal's Representative's company's email address during the life of the Contract.
Case Background
In October 2021 the parties entered into a D&C contract for a residential building in Vaucluse. The contract required Reform to provide security by way of retention of 10% of each progress certificate up to a maximum of 5% of the contract sum. Reform constructed the project between October 2021 and practical completion was achieved in June 2024. In April Reform sent an email to the Principal's Representative, and his colleague at Aspire Development Management, attaching progress claim 28. The Principal's Rep issued a payment certificate showing the retention sum at $460k. After PC the Principal's Rep issued a payment certificate releasing $230k of retention, being 50% of the security held. The DLP expired in June 2025. Reform issued a list of defects showing all as "closed". In August 2025 Reform issued a Final Payment Claim to the Principal's Rep, but no Final Payment Certificate was provided in response. In September 2025 Reform issued a progress claim for the balance of the retention sum, but again no payment certificate was provided in response. In October 2025 Reform issued a letter of demand.
The Proceedings
In December 2025 Reform commenced proceedings seeking payment of the balance of the security under s 15(2)(a)(i) of SOPA, plus interest and costs. Burge St disputed that the payment claim satisfied the requirements of SOPA. Burge St said that Reform failed to discharge its onus of proving valid service of the payment claim and therefore the "statutory pathway" was not engaged. Reform argued that the notice clause in the contract allowed a document to be given and received if addressed or delivered to the relevant address or the address last communicated to the person giving the notice. It also relied on s 31(d) of SOPA.
The Outcome
His Honour considered the recent CoA judgment in Rewais which was directly applicable to the question of whether the payment claim was effected upon Burge St. Numerous claims were sent to the Principals' Rep and dealt with without complaint and paid giving rise to a sound basis to conclude the email address as being specified under SOPA. Accordingly service was effected under s 31 and under clause 7 of the Contract by the frequent use of the Principal's Rep's email address. Therefore Burge St became liable to pay the entire amount under SOPA and judgment was entered for Reform.