Security of Payment Act (SOPA) deadlines can begin before anyone opens a progress claim email. For builders, principals and commercial teams, a recent Western Australian Court of Appeal decision provides a stark example of a multimillion-dollar risk created by a missed payment schedule deadline.
An emailed payment claim sent on a Saturday was treated as received that day, despite not being opened until the following Monday.
The result was that the principal’s payment schedule was issued late, leaving it liable for the full claimed amount of approximately $22.6 million.
How the Martinus Rail case affected SOPA deadlines
In Co-Operative Bulk Handling Ltd v Martinus Rail Pty Ltd [2026] WASCA 82, Martinus Rail emailed a progress claim to the principal’s nominated representative on Saturday, 31 August 2024.
The representative opened the email on Monday, 2 September. The contract also contained a clause stating that communications received on a non-business day were deemed to have been received at 9am on the next business day.
Relying on that clause, the principal issued its payment schedule on Tuesday, 24 September.
However, the Court confirmed that the contractual provision could not change when the progress claim was considered to have been made under Western Australia’s Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment) Act 2021.
Under the statutory rules, the email was received when it became capable of being retrieved at the designated email address — in this case, the Saturday it was sent. The applicable 15-business-day period therefore expired on Friday, 20 September, making the payment schedule late.
Contracts cannot extend SOPA deadlines
The most important lesson is that contractual notice provisions cannot defer the statutory timing of an emailed SOPA payment claim in WA.
A clause stating that weekend or after-hours communications are received on the following business day may still serve other contractual purposes. However, the Court found that it could not alter the time at which a payment claim was given under the WA legislation.
Commercial teams therefore cannot safely calculate their response periods based solely on the contract. They must also understand how the legislation and regulations determine service and receipt. The relevant rules also draw on section 14 of the Electronic Transactions Act 2011, which addresses when an electronic communication is taken to have been received.
Why inbox-based processes put SOPA deadlines at risk
The decision exposes the weaknesses of relying on individual or shared email inboxes to manage statutory payment claims.
A claim may arrive:
- outside normal working hours;
- during a weekend or public holiday;
- while the nominated person is away;
- in an inbox monitored by only one employee; or
- without being recognised immediately as a statutory payment claim.
The deadline may still be running, regardless of when someone reads or internally forwards the email.
That means an effective process must do more than remind someone to check their inbox. Organisations need clear responsibility, backup coverage, escalation procedures and visibility across commercial, project and legal teams.
These weaknesses can also contribute to what we call the dispute snowball: a small administrative issue creates confusion, confusion leads to frustration, and an avoidable process gap eventually escalates into a formal dispute.
Practical steps for managing SOPA deadlines
Although the Martinus Rail decision concerned Western Australian legislation, its broader operational lesson should not be viewed as relevant to WA alone.
The NSW Court of Appeal has reached a materially similar conclusion, finding that an electronically submitted payment claim took effect when it became capable of being retrieved and that a contractual after-hours deeming provision could not extend the statutory period for responding.
Security of Payment legislation and service requirements differ between Australian jurisdictions. New Zealand’s Construction Contracts Act also has its own requirements governing payment claims, payment schedules and response periods. However, the broader risk is consistent: organisations should not assume that a contractual deeming clause, normal office hours or the date an employee opens an email will necessarily determine when the response clock begins.
Builders, principals and commercial teams across Australia and New Zealand should therefore consider reviewing:
- Designated email addresses
Confirm which addresses can receive payment claims and who is responsible for monitoring them. - Weekend and absence coverage
Ensure claims are not missed when team members are on leave or outside the office. - Deadline calculations
Calculate the response deadline from the legally effective time of receipt, rather than the date the claim was opened. - Internal escalation
Promptly route claims to the right contract administrator, quantity surveyor, commercial manager and legal adviser. - Records and audit trails
Maintain clear evidence of when a claim was received, assessed and responded to. - Contract and process alignment
Review whether internal procedures reflect the legislation rather than relying on contractual deeming provisions.
In Western Australia, a payment schedule must generally be given by the earlier of the period specified in the contract or 15 business days after the payment claim is made. Different timeframes and requirements apply elsewhere, so organisations operating across multiple jurisdictions should ensure their processes accommodate the relevant local legislation.
Where structured progress claim technology helps
Technology cannot replace legal advice or determine whether a particular document has been validly served. However, a smarter progress claim process can reduce the operational risk created by fragmented inboxes, spreadsheets and manual reminders.
A purpose-built progress claim platform such as Payapps helps teams centralise claims, standardise assessment workflows, maintain visibility over claims awaiting assessment and create a clear record of submissions, assessments and payment schedules.
It can also support better coordination between project, commercial and finance teams, reducing the risk that a claim sits unseen or becomes delayed during an internal handover.
The critical point is that technology must form part of a broader compliance process. Nominated service channels, internal responsibilities and legal requirements must all be properly aligned.
The cost of one missed SOPA deadline
This decision reinforces how unforgiving Security of Payment legislation can be. The difference between a compliant payment schedule and exposure to the full claimed amount may come down to when an email became retrievable — not when someone noticed it.
For WA builders and principals, progress claim management can no longer be treated as ordinary inbox administration. It requires visibility, accountability and processes designed around strict statutory timeframes.
Want to strengthen your progress claim process?
Explore the five warning signs that your progress claim process may be heading towards a dispute, or complete our Payment Claim Workflow Health Check to identify opportunities to improve efficiency, visibility and control.
This article provides general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Organisations should obtain advice on their contracts, service arrangements and obligations under applicable Security of Payment legislation.
