eSiteOffice®
OPENS OCTOBERRegister interest

Home › Court cases › A-Civil v Meso

Court case · Security of Payment · NSW

A clause holding back payment until paperwork arrived did not delay a subcontractor’s payment

A-Civil Aust Pty Ltd v Meso Solutions Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 372 — Supreme Court of NSW, Richmond J, 17 April 2023. A piling subcontractor sent its head contractor a $366,813.79 payment claim without the documents the subcontract required. The head contractor treated the claim as invalid and did not reply to it. The court held that the payment still fell due 20 business days after the claim. The subcontractor’s $366,813.76 adjudication stood, and the head contractor paid the costs.

Reviewed by · 2 October 2026

What happened

Source: the judgment on NSW Caselaw. Numbers in [brackets] are the judgment’s paragraphs.

  1. 28 June 2021 — A-Civil, the head contractor, engages Meso, the subcontractor, to do the piling on a Parramatta site for $1,406,745 (ex GST). Clause 8.3 of the subcontract says every payment claim must come with statutory declarations, insurance certificates and other documents [9], [44].
  2. 30 May 2022 — Meso emails Claim 16 for $366,813.79. Meso does not attach the documents that clause 8.3 requires [22].
  3. A-Civil does not serve a payment schedule (the written reply that says how much the payer will pay and why). The court found the likely reason was that A-Civil’s CEO regarded the claim as invalid [63].
  4. 15 July 2022 — Meso serves a notice under s 17(2) of the Act. The notice gives A-Civil five business days to serve a payment schedule or pay [27].
  5. 4 August 2022 — Meso applies for adjudication. The next day, Meso asks A-Civil’s own principal to withhold the money [31], [32].
  6. 12 August 2022 — the adjudicator decides that $366,813.76 is payable [1], [42].
  7. A-Civil asks the court to overturn the adjudicator’s decision. A-Civil argues that the claim was invalid, and that Meso had told it by phone to ignore the claim. The court rejects both arguments and dismisses the case with costs [64], [84], [92].

The rule

Under the Act, a progress payment to a subcontractor is due and payable 20 business days after the payment claim is made. The contract can make it due earlier (s 11(1B)) [80], [84].

Clause 8.3 let A-Civil hold back payment until the documents arrived. That could make payment fall due later than the Act allows. The Act says a term that does that has no effect (s 11(8)) [84]. The court added that if the clause had applied, it would have been void because it restricted the operation of the Act (s 34) [85].

What it means for you

If you’re the trade: your contract can make payment due sooner than the date the Act sets. On this decision, a clause that holds payment back until paperwork arrives does not push that date later.

If you’re paying: reply to every payment claim with a payment schedule on time, even when you think the claim is defective. A-Civil served no payment schedule, it seems because it believed the claim was invalid [63]. The adjudicator then decided that $366,813.76 was payable [42].

Either way: put important agreements in writing. A-Civil relied on phone conversations with Meso, and the court did not accept its account of them [64].

When is your payment due?

Put in the date your claim was served and the calculator gives you every date the Act sets: when a payment schedule is due, when payment is due, and what you can do if you’re not paid. Two minutes.

I sent a claim — when do I get paid? → I received a claim — show my deadline →

This page explains one court decision. It isn’t legal advice about your contract.