The construction cases handed down in 2025 reinforced a theme that many in the industry already understand in theory, but still get caught out by in practice: process and precision matter. Whether it is the way payment schedules are prepared, or how contracts are formed, the courts have shown little tolerance for shortcuts.
The following cases provide clear guidance on where parties are going wrong and how those risks can be avoided.
Payment schedules must stand on their own
Baguley Build Pty Ltd v Olcon Concrete & Construction Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QSC 126
This Queensland Supreme Court decision is a timely reminder that payment schedules must contain all reasons for withholding payment – every time.
The subcontractor issued a payment claim that largely repeated labour items from earlier claims. In response, the contractor certified $0 and simply stated that the claim was a consolidation of previous invoices and that the “reasons for withholding payment have not changed”. Those earlier reasons had included issues such as unsigned timesheets, lack of receipts, inefficiency and defects.
When the matter proceeded to adjudication, the contractor attempted to rely on those earlier explanations. The Court held that it could not. Because the payment schedule itself did not set out the reasons, those reasons were treated as “new reasons” and were excluded from consideration.
The lesson is straightforward: a payment schedule must be complete in itself. It is not enough to refer back to prior correspondence or assume the claimant knows the reasons already. If the reasons are not expressly set out in the payment schedule for that claim, they cannot be relied upon later.
Poor handling of neighbour access can be costly
21 Broadbeach Blvd Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Oceana on Broadbeach [2025] QSC 186
Access to neighbouring property is a common issue on construction projects, whether for scaffolding, hoardings, rock anchors or crane overswing. This case shows how mishandling those negotiations can expose a developer to significant cost risk.
The developer applied to the Supreme Court under section 180 of the Property Law Act for access to neighbouring land. While access was ultimately justified, the developer had approached the process poorly – filing an application without adequate supporting evidence and failing to meaningfully engage with the neighbouring body corporate until late in the process.
Although access was granted on agreed terms, the Court ordered the developer to pay the body corporate’s costs on an indemnity basis, a higher and more extensive costs order.
The key lesson is that how you conduct yourself matters. Where access to neighbouring property is required, early engagement, proper documentation and a reasonable negotiation strategy are essential. If court intervention becomes necessary, parties must be prepared and act responsibly, or risk adverse cost consequences.
Contract formation issues can undermine payment rights
Alorra Piling (NSW) Pty Ltd v Bloc Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd; Bloc Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Alorra Piling (NSW) Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 1324
This case highlights the risks of commencing work without a clearly executed contract and, in particular, without clarity about the contracting entity.
Work was carried out under an exchange of quotations and emails, but no formal subcontract was ever signed. When a payment dispute arose, the head contractor argued that the contract was with a different entity that did not hold the required licence, which would have invalidated the subcontractor’s entitlement under the security of payment legislation.
The Court rejected that argument, finding that the parties’ conduct demonstrated an intention to contract with the licensed entity that had performed the work and been paid throughout the project.
While the subcontractor ultimately succeeded, the case illustrates how easily payment rights can be jeopardised by unclear documentation, inconsistent entity naming, and informal contracting practices.
Incomplete contracts can defeat liquidated damages claims
XJS World Pty Ltd v Central West Civil Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCA 133
This Court of Appeal decision concerned a standard form contract where the Date for Practical Completion had been left blank.
Although the contract specified a daily liquidated damages rate, and the quotation referred to a three-month timeframe, the Court found there was no agreed completion date. It refused to “fill the gap” by importing the timeframe from another part of the contract.
As a result, the liquidated damages regime was never activated, and the principal’s claim failed.
The lesson is blunt: courts will not fix incomplete contracts. If key contractual fields are left blank, parties may lose the benefit of important rights, including liquidated damages.
Contractual deeming clauses cannot extend statutory deadlines
Roberts Co (NSW) Pty Ltd v Sharvain Facades Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2025] NSWCA 161
In this case, a payment claim was emailed on a Friday evening. The contract included a deeming clause stating that notices received after 5pm were deemed served at 9am the next business day. Relying on that clause, the contractor issued its payment schedule outside the statutory timeframe calculated from actual receipt.
The Court of Appeal held that the deeming clause was void to the extent it purported to modify the operation of the Security of Payment Act. A payment claim is served when it is capable of being received, regardless of the time of day.
The consequence was severe: the payment schedule was late, and the subcontractor was entitled to recover the full claimed amount.
The takeaway is that statutory timeframes are strict. Contractual provisions cannot be relied upon to extend or soften them.
Practical lessons for principals and contractors
Taken together, these cases reinforce several practical themes:
- Payment schedules must clearly and fully set out reasons for withholding payment, every time.
- Neighbour access issues should be identified early and handled carefully to avoid litigation and cost exposure.
- Contracts should be formally executed before work starts, with correct entities and licences clearly identified.
- All essential contract details must be completed – courts will not fill in the blanks.
- Security of payment deadlines must be calculated conservatively and complied with strictly.
The common thread is simple but critical: attention to detail at the front end of a project can prevent costly disputes at the back end. These cases make it clear that courts will enforce contracts and statutory regimes as written – not as parties later wish they had been.
