When are settlement agreements concerning payment claims void under SOPA?
If a respondent fails to issue a payment schedule in time, but the parties then reach a settlement agreement in relation to the payment claim and construction contract, can the claimant still pursue summary judgment for the full claimed amount due to s.34 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (SOPA)?
Facts
In Reward Interiors Pty Ltd v Master Fabrication (NSW AU) Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 1251, the claimant served a payment claim and the respondent did not respond within 10 business days as required by the SOPA. The parties attended a meeting three weeks after the payment claim was issued and agreed to a reduced amount to be paid on the payment claim.[1] The respondent paid the settlement amount the following day.[2]
The respondent then commenced proceedings against the claimant for damages arising from work performed by the claimant.
The claimant cross-claimed and sought summary judgment on the full payment claim amount. The claimant argued that s.34, which prohibits parties from contracting out of the SOPA, rendered the settlement agreement void.[3]
Decision
The claimant offered no authority for the argument that s.34 of the SOPA renders void settlement agreements which compromise a dispute concerning an amount claimed in a payment claim or the construction contract between the parties generally.[4] The claimant had agreed not to move for summary judgment on the full claimed amount by accepting the reduced settlement amount.[5]
Stevenson J held that it was at least arguable that the settlement agreement was not rendered void because it acknowledged the operation of the SOPA, yet recorded the parties’ intention that in the particular circumstances their rights would instead be governed by their agreement.[6] This did not constitute an ‘attempt to deter a person from taking action under’ the SOPA.[7]
Tips for binding settlement agreements on payment claims
The answer to the question posed in the introduction is no. Assuming the settlement agreement seeks to properly compromise existing entitlements, it will not be voided by s.34 of the SOPA.
The terms should be clearly expressed and specific. It should state that the claimant has agreed to accept the settlement amount in “full and final satisfaction” of the payment claim and claims made in the payment claim. The terms should provide that once the respondent pays the settlement amount, the claimant “releases” the respondent from any claims or proceedings in respect of the payment claim and claims made in the payment claim.
Where settlement agreement may be rendered void under s 34 is where it seeks to exclude or restrict rights or entitlements arising in the future. For example, where the parties simply agree (without more) that the claimant will have no entitlement to submit further payment claims.
Of course, the respondent should always serve a proper payment schedule (scheduling nil or a reduced amount and giving reasons) in response to a payment claim, even if confident in securing a settlement, in order to avoid the type of argument raised in Reward Interiors.
[1] At [11].
[2] At [14].
[3] At [15].
[4] At [19].
[5] At [23].
[6] At [24] and [26].
[7] At [25], re s.34(2)(b).