Weekend Emails and Payment Claims: A Tale of Two Jurisdictions

It’s a quiet Saturday afternoon. The cranes stand still, the excavators are parked, and most of the crew have gone home to their families. Yet, behind the scenes, the project doesn’t really sleep. An email pings into a company’s inbox—a payment claim. Nobody reads it that day. Nobody even sees it until Monday morning.

For many contractors, subcontractors, and clients, that scenario feels harmless. But in the world of construction law, timing is everything. The moment that email landed, the statutory clock had already started ticking. By the time the office opened again, precious days had already been lost.

This was precisely the issue at the heart of Martinus Rail Pty Ltd v Co-Operative Bulk Handling Ltd [2025] WASC 373. The case reminds us that the construction industry runs not only on concrete and steel, but also on strict legal timelines designed to keep cash flowing.

As an adjudicator, I see time and again how the smallest detail—like the day or even the hour a claim is served—can determine the outcome of a dispute. And as this case shows, what counts as “served” in one country may be treated very differently in another.
​
Martinus Rail Pty Ltd v Co-Operative Bulk Handling Ltd [2025] WASC 373

Court / Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of Western Australia.
​
Facts

• Martinus Rail served a statutory payment claim under the Western Australian Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment) Act 2021 (WA) (“SOPA”) on 31 August 2024 by email.
• That date was a Saturday, and although the email was capable of being retrieved then, the recipient (CBH) opened it only on the next business day, Monday.
• CBH responded with a payment schedule by email on 24 September 2024.
• Key dispute: when did the 15 business-day timeframe for CBH to issue a compliant payment schedule begin? From Saturday (when the claim was served / capable of retrieval) or Monday (when it opened / business day)?

Issues

1. Whether under the SOPA Regulations (particularly reg 23(d)) & the Electronic Transactions Act 2011 (WA), an email delivered on a weekend and capable of being retrieved then should be taken as “given” on that day.
2. Whether a contractual deeming clause (in this case clause 47.4 in the contract between Martinus and CBH) that declared that notices/payment claims sent on a Saturday are taken to be given only on the next business day could shift / delay the start-date of the SOPA timeframe.
3. Whether such a contractual deeming provision is valid (i.e. whether parties can, by contract, alter or extend SOPA’s statutory time limits).

Decision

• The Court held that the payment claim served by email on Saturday was, under SOPA and the Electronic Transactions Act, deemed to be given on that Saturday, since it was capable of being retrieved then.
• The contractual deeming clause in the contract (clause 47.4) purporting to make the claim “given” only on the next business day (Monday) was ineffective for the purposes of calculating the timeline under SOPA.
• The Court reinforced that statutory time limits under SOPA are strict and cannot be overridden by contractual agreement. In particular, section 111 of SOPA renders of no effect any contract that purports to alter or postpone the statutory timeframes.

Significance

• First full hearing in WA Supreme Court on operation of s. 27(3) of SOPA: If no payment schedule is given in time, the claimant may proceed to judgment for the full claimed amount.
• Clarifies that “email” + “weekend” do not protect respondents from strict statutory deadlines if the email could be retrieved. The notion of “capable of retrieval” is central.
• Reinforces that contractual clauses which try to delay or change the statutory start point are void / of no effect to the extent they conflict with SOPA.
• Emphasises importance of prompt, automated systems for receiving and registering claims (even over the weekend) and ensuring that contract terms are aligned (or better: do not try to frustrate statutory timelines).

Practical Lessons for Adjudicators / Contractors / Claimants

• Always check when a payment claim is sent and whether it is capable of being retrieved immediately—even if it’s weekend or after hours. That timestamp can matter.
• Review contracts for deeming clauses: if they seek to adjust the start date of statutory timeframes, they likely will be ineffective under SOPA.
• For respondents: monitor email systems or other receipt infrastructures so you’re not caught off guard. Whether or not you “read” or “open” the email may be less important than whether it was delivered / retrievable.
• For claimants: this case provides confidence that statutory deadlines are robust; if the respondent fails to schedule in time, you may have strong grounds under s. 27(3) to pursue judgment.

Adjudicator’s Perspective
From the vantage of someone who adjudicates (or presides over security-of-payment / construction payment disputes), this case is a reminder of how strictly the courts will enforce SOPA’s timing provisions. The statute’s purpose of ensuring cash flow in the construction industry depends on certainty and predictability: parties must know that when payment claims are served, the clock starts ticking, regardless of weekends or inconvenient contract clauses. From a fairness perspective, this helps claimants who cannot control business hours; from a process perspective, it imposes diligence on respondents.

Contrast with New Zealand’s CCA 2002

In New Zealand, the Construction Contracts Act 2002 defines “working day” strictly. Documents (including payment claims and payment schedules) must be served during working days only—weekends and public holidays are excluded from the calculation.

• If a payment claim were emailed on a Saturday in NZ, service would not be valid until the next working day.
• This means NZ respondents are not exposed to “weekend service” risk, unlike under WA’s SOPA regime.

Why the distinction matters?

• In WA, claimants can start the statutory clock immediately upon retrievable service—even outside business hours.
• In NZ, the statutory clock runs only against working days, giving respondents clearer protection against “out-of-hours” claims.

Adjudicator’s Reflection
Both approaches reveal the policy balance between protecting cash flow (strict timeframes in WA) and ensuring procedural fairness (working-day service in NZ). For practitioners, it underscores the importance of knowing which statutory regime governs—what is effective service in one jurisdiction may be invalid in another.

Takeaway​
Internationally, security of payment legislation shares the same goal—cash flow—but the mechanics differ. Understanding the nuances between regimes like WA’s SOPA and NZ’s CCA 2002 is crucial for contractors, consultants, and adjudicators alike.