Council CONNECT May 2018 5 Commercial Disputes However, after 10 business days had passed the builder had not provided a payment schedule. The SOP Act (section 15) provides that by not providing a payment schedule replying to the progress claim, the builder became liable to pay the amount claimed by the hire contractor in its progress claim. The SOP Act also provides that if the builder did not pay the claimed amount by the due date (which it did not), the hire contractor could recover the amount in the appropriate court as a debt. Under section 15(4) of the SOP Act, the builder would be unable to bring any cross claim against the hire contractor or raise any defence based on matters arising under the construction contract. In fact, the only basis available to resist the court application would be if the hire contractor had not strictly complied with the SOP Act (which it had). The hire contractor drafted a statement of claim to recover the claimed amount from the builder in court. However, before filing it, the hire contractor sent the builder a copy of the draft advising of its intention to file, and stating that as the builder had not provided a payment schedule, it was prohibited by the SOP Act from bringing a cross claim or raising a defence in the proceedings. Given that, the hire contractor invited the builder to pay the claimed amount immediately and avoid not only its own legal costs of any proceedings, but also those of the hire contractor’s in the likely event that the contractor was successful and costs were awarded against the builder. Result Under sufferance and over significant objection, the builder realised its error in not providing the payment schedule and paid the hire contractor the claimed amount. Why does council need to know? This successful result for the hire contractor clearly illustrates the consequences to a principal or head contractor of not responding to a progress claim by providing a payment schedule.