When Can a Builder Stop Work for Non-Payment?
A builder may stop work for non-payment in Queensland, but only where there is a lawful basis to do so.
That lawful basis will typically arise from either the terms of the construction contract or statutory rights under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld).
In the absence of such a right, stopping work can itself constitute a serious breach of contract.
The central legal issue is not whether payment has been withheld, but whether the builder is legally entitled to respond by suspending performance.
At common law, a party is not entitled to suspend performance merely because the other party has failed to pay, unless that failure amounts to a sufficiently serious breach or the contract expressly permits suspension.
The High Court has made clear that not every breach justifies bringing contractual performance to an end or refusing further performance.
In Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Land Council v Sanpine Pty Ltd (2007) 233 CLR 115, the Court explained at [44] the threshold for serious breach as follows:
The test is whether the conduct of one party is such as to convey to a reasonable person, in the situation of the other party, renunciation either of the contract as a whole or of a fundamental obligation under it.
This principle is directly relevant to suspension of works because an unjustified refusal to continue performance may itself be characterised as repudiatory conduct.
The law distinguishes between a mere failure to perform and conduct that evinces an unwillingness or inability to perform the contract.
In Shevill v Builders Licensing Board (1982) 149 CLR 620, the High Court emphasised that not every breach of an obligation, including failure to pay, will necessarily amount to repudiation or justify termination as stated at [4]:
The breaches of the covenant to pay rent did not necessarily amount to a repudiation of the lease.
Similarly, in Progressive Mailing House Pty Ltd v Tabali Pty Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 17, the Court recognised that repudiation requires conduct demonstrating a fundamental departure from contractual obligations, rather than a simple failure to comply on a particular occasion.
This distinction is critical in the construction context, where payment disputes are common but do not automatically entitle a contractor to cease work.
Read more here – Breach of Contract in Australia
In parallel with these common law principles, the Queensland statutory regime modifies the position by conferring specific rights to claim and recover progress payments.
The purpose of that regime is to support cash flow in the construction industry.
Accordingly, whether a builder can stop work for non-payment depends on a careful analysis of:
- the terms of the contract,
- the nature and seriousness of the non-payment, and
- compliance with any applicable statutory regime.
Failure to properly navigate these requirements can expose a builder to significant legal consequences, including claims for repudiation and damages.
Contractual Rights to Suspend Work
In most construction projects, the starting point for determining whether a builder can stop work is the contract itself.
Construction contracts commonly include express provisions permitting suspension in the event of nonpayment, but those rights are typically conditional on strict procedural compliance.
These provisions often require the builder to identify a payment default, issue a formal notice, and allow a specified period for the principal to remedy the breach before any suspension occurs.
The legal significance of these contractual mechanisms lies in the broader principle that parties must perform their contractual obligations unless and until they are lawfully entitled to depart from them.
A failure to comply with contractual preconditions to suspension may result in the builder’s conduct being characterised as a refusal to perform the contract.
At common law, such conduct may amount to repudiation where it demonstrates an unwillingness to be bound by the contract according to its terms.
In Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Land Council v Sanpine Pty Ltd (2007) 233 CLR 115, the High Court explained at [44] that repudiation may arise where a party’s conduct indicates a substantial failure to perform contractual obligations:
The term repudiation is used in different senses. First, it may refer to conduct which evinces an unwillingness or an inability to render substantial performance of the contract. This is sometimes described as conduct of a party which evinces an intention no longer to be bound by the contract or to fulfil it only in a manner substantially inconsistent with the party’s obligations
This principle applies directly where a builder suspends work without satisfying contractual requirements, as such conduct may signal that the builder no longer intends to perform in accordance with the agreed terms.
Case study here – Repudiation of a Building Contract – Addinos v OJ Pippin Homes
The distinction between a lawful suspension and repudiatory conduct, therefore, turns on strict adherence to the contractual framework.
Even where a builder may stop work for non-payment in Queensland, a builder who fails to follow the contractual mechanism risks losing the benefit of any contractual protection.
This reflects the broader contractual principle that rights to terminate or suspend must be exercised in accordance with the contract.
Statutory Rights Under Security of Payment Legislation
In addition to contractual rights, builders may have statutory rights to suspend work under Queensland legislation. The regime in Queensland is governed by the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld), which aims to ensure contractors and subcontractors receive prompt payment for construction work.
Read more about subcontractors’ rights – Subcontractor Payment Rights – Complete Guide
The Act establishes a structured process involving payment claims, payment schedules, and adjudication.
The High Court in Southern Han Breakfast Point Pty Ltd (in liq) v Lewence Construction Pty Ltd [2016] HCA 52 has described the purpose of this legislative framework in clear terms, as stated at [4]:
The Act was designed to ensure prompt payment and, for that purpose, the Act set up a unique form of adjudication of disputes over the amount due for payment … ‘cash flow is the lifeblood of the construction industry’.
Under these regimes, a builder is typically entitled to take further steps when a valid payment claim is unpaid or disputed.
Those steps may include adjudication and, in certain circumstances, the right to suspend work.
However, the statutory right to suspend is not automatic.
Under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld), a right to suspend work arises only after strict compliance with the Act. In general terms, this requires:
- the service of a valid payment claim under Chapter 3 of the Act, if Chapter 3 applies to the contract.
- the respondent’s failure to pay the amount owed by the due date, or failure to pay an adjudicated amount as required by the Act.
- the giving of a written notice of intention to suspend work that states it is made under the Act; and
- the expiry of at least 2 business days after that notice.
The statutory framework operates independently of the contract, meaning that a builder may have a right to suspend even where the contract is silent on the issue, provided the Act applies to the relevant contract and the statutory preconditions have been satisfied.
At the same time, the statutory scheme does not displace contractual obligations unless its requirements are satisfied.
The importance of complying with statutory preconditions is reflected in judicial consideration of the Security of Payment regime.
In Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd v Luikens [2003] NSWSC 1140, the Court emphasised at [6] that the statutory process is structured and prescriptive, with defined steps governing payment claims and responses:
From time to time Lahey submitted progress claims to Multiplex in accordance with the subcontract… [and] served on Multiplex a Payment Claim under s 13 of the Act.
This structured process underpins any statutory entitlement to suspend work and reinforces that such rights are procedural as well as substantive.
Interaction Between Contractual and Statutory Rights
Contractual and statutory rights to suspend work operate concurrently but are conceptually distinct.
A builder may have a contractual right to suspend, a statutory right to suspend, or both.
However, each right must be exercised in accordance with its own requirements.
Compliance with one regime does not necessarily cure non-compliance with the other.
For example, a builder who relies on a contractual right must strictly comply with the contractual notice provisions, while a builder who relies on statutory rights must comply with the procedural steps prescribed by legislation.
Failure to comply with either framework may expose the builder to claims that the suspension was unlawful.
The consequences of getting this wrong can be significant in construction disputes.
In Gaymark Investments Pty Ltd v Walter Construction Group Ltd [1999] NTSC 143, the dispute illustrates the broader risks associated with contractual non-compliance in construction projects, including the potential loss of contractual entitlements and exposure to counterclaims, as stated at [3]:
Claims were made… principally for variations, prolongation and disruption… Gaymark counter-claimed… arising through the application of liquidated damages in accordance with the contract.
Although not a suspension case in itself, it reflects the broader principle that departures from contractual mechanisms can have substantial financial consequences.
Ultimately, the legal framework governing suspension of works requires a builder to identify the source of their right and comply strictly with its requirements.
The interaction between contract and statute does not create flexibility but instead imposes parallel systems of obligation that must be carefully navigated.
What Classifies as “Non-Payment”?
In construction disputes, “non-payment” most commonly arises through a failure to pay a progress claim.
Whether that failure gives rise to any right to suspend work depends first on the source of the payment entitlement.
That source may be the construction contract, the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld), or both.
Under the statutory regime, the concept of a progress payment is central.
In Southern Han Breakfast Point Pty Ltd (in liq) v Lewence Construction Pty Ltd [2016] HCA 52, the High Court set out the statutory definition in these terms at [8]:
progress payment’ means a payment to which a person is entitled under section 8, and includes (without affecting any such entitlement):
(a) the final payment for construction work carried out (or for related goods and services supplied) under a construction contract, or
(b) a single or one-off payment for carrying out construction work (or for supplying related goods and services) under a construction contract, or
(c) a payment that is based on an event or date (known in the building and construction industry as a ‘milestone payment’).
The High Court also made clear that the statutory entitlement depends on the existence of a valid reference date under the contract, as stated at [2]:
Contrary to the conclusion of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, and consistently with the conclusion of the primary judge, the existence of a reference date under a construction contract is a precondition to the making of a valid payment claim, and no such reference date existed in the present case.
In Queensland, a valid reference date remains a precondition for a valid payment claim under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld).
A payment claim made without a reference date, or made prematurely, will not be valid and will not support adjudication or any statutory right to suspend work.
Accordingly, a builder is not dealing with actionable “non-payment” merely because money was expected.
The claim must first be legally due under the contract or the statute.
That distinction matters because an invalid, early, or reference-date-less claim may not support later enforcement steps.
For present purposes, the key point is that failure to pay a progress claim only becomes legally significant when the claim itself is valid and the relevant contractual or statutory process has been engaged.
Read about payment claims here – Making a Payment Claim – BIFA (QLD)
Partial Payment and Underpayment
Non-payment does not always take the form of a complete failure to pay.
It may instead arise through part payment, underpayment, withholding, or payment of an amount less than the amount claimed.
Whether a shortfall is sufficient to justify suspension depends on the contractual framework and the applicable statutory regime.
In some cases, the contract may permit withholding by way of set-off, certification, or superintendent assessment.
In others, a respondent may be required to identify the amount it proposes to pay and the reasons for withholding the balance.
The Security of Payment framework is built around that distinction between the amount claimed and the amount scheduled or paid.
As the High Court explained in Southern Han Breakfast Point Pty Ltd (in liq) v Lewence Construction Pty Ltd [2016] HCA 52 at [6]:
Section 3 of the Act gives statutory expression to the object of the Act, summarises the means by which the Act pursues that object, and emphasises that the Act is not intended to affect other entitlements and remedies.
That matters because a short payment may still trigger statutory consequences even where the underlying contractual dispute remains unresolved on a final basis.
A builder, therefore, needs to distinguish between a temporary shortfall that is being dealt with through the contract and a failure to pay that activates a statutory right.
The question is not simply whether the full amount claimed was paid.
The question is whether the unpaid amount is presently and legally recoverable in a way that supports further action.
Disputed Invoices and Set-Off Claims
A payment dispute will often involve allegations that the invoice is incorrect, incomplete, overstated, premature, or subject to set-off for defects, delay, or other cross-claims.
In those situations, the existence of a dispute does not necessarily mean that there has been no non-payment.
Equally, the mere fact that a builder has issued an invoice does not mean that the other party is immediately in default for all purposes.
Much depends on the terms of the contract and the applicable statutory mechanism.
The security of payment cases show that the legislation draws a distinction between a claim being disputed and a respondent being entitled to ignore it.
In Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd v Luikens [2003] NSWSC 1140, Palmer J described the object of the statutory process as requiring a responding party to engage with the claim through the Act’s prescribed mechanism, rather than simply leaving the dispute unresolved informally.
That is why the existence of a payment schedule and its content may become critical in determining whether the matter is a mere contractual disagreement or a legally operative non-payment event.
At common law, care is required before treating a payment dispute as justification for ceasing performance.
Not every breach or payment disagreement goes to the root of the contract.
In Shevill v Builders Licensing Board (1982) 149 CLR 620, the High Court said at [2]:
It is, however, impossible to conclude that the lessee was unwilling to comply with its obligations.
Although that case concerned a lease rather than a construction contract, the point is useful and transferable in principle.
A failure to pay may reflect a genuine dispute, temporary financial difficulty, or a contested position under the contract, rather than conduct amounting to repudiation.
For that reason, a builder should be slow to equate a disputed invoice with an immediate right to stop work unless the contract or statute clearly permits that response.
Read more here – Client not Paying Invoice? How to Recover the Debt
Required Steps Before a Builder Can Lawfully Suspend Work
Before any right to suspend work can arise, there must first be a valid entitlement to payment.
That entitlement must be grounded either in the construction contract or in the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld).
Under statutory regimes, the validity of a payment claim is a precondition for any further rights to arise.
A claim that does not comply with statutory requirements will not support enforcement action, including suspension.
The structured nature of the statutory regime has been recognised judicially.
In Musico and Ors v Davenport and Ors [2003] NSWSC 977, McDougall J described at [3] the statutory process in the context of compliant claims and responses:
It is accepted that the payment claim complied with the relevant requirements of s13… It is accepted that the payment schedule complied with the relevant requirements of s 14, and that it was served within the applicable relevant time permitted by that section.
This illustrates that rights under the legislation depend upon compliance at each stage.
A builder cannot rely on “non-payment” unless the underlying claim is valid and properly made.
Providing Proper Notice of Suspension
Even where a valid payment claim has been made and remains unpaid, a builder will generally be required to provide notice before suspending work.
This requirement arises either under the construction contract or under statute.
The purpose of the notice is to identify the alleged default and provide the other party with a final opportunity to respond.
Contractual rights, particularly those affecting performance, must be exercised strictly in accordance with their terms.
The High Court has emphasised that contractual obligations and rights are governed by ordinary principles of construction and enforcement.
In Ankar Pty Ltd v National Westminster Finance (Queensland) Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 549, the Court stated at [6]:
Discharge of the surety for breach of the suretyship contract by the creditor is governed by the ordinary principles of the law of contract.
Although arising in a guarantee context, the principle is of general application.
Where a contract prescribes a procedure for responding to breach, that procedure must be followed.
A failure to give the required notice may render a purported suspension ineffective and expose the builder to claims that it has acted inconsistently with the contract.
Allowing Time for the Breach to be Remedied
A further requirement commonly found in construction contracts and statutory regimes is that the defaulting party must be given an opportunity to remedy the breach.
This is often expressed as a requirement to allow a specified period following notice before taking further steps.
The rationale is that suspension of work is a significant step that should not be taken without affording the other party a reasonable opportunity to comply.
The law recognises that contractual rights, particularly those with serious consequences, must be exercised in a manner consistent with the contract as a whole.
In Laurinda Pty Ltd v Capalaba Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd (1989) 166 CLR 623, the High Court considered the effectiveness of notice and the requirement to allow a reasonable time for compliance:
The question… is whether the first appellant… was entitled to terminate for breach… [including] whether reasonable time [was] allowed for compliance.
This principle applies equally in the context of suspension.
If a builder acts before the expiry of the required period, the suspension may be premature and therefore unlawful.
Compliance with Statutory Preconditions
Where a builder relies on statutory rights, additional procedural requirements must be satisfied.
These typically include the service of a payment claim, the opportunity for the respondent to provide a payment schedule, and compliance with prescribed time frames.
The statutory scheme is deliberately structured and must be followed carefully.
In Chase Oyster Bar Pty Ltd v Hamo Industries Pty Ltd (2010) 78 NSWLR 393, the Court of Appeal emphasised the nature of the legislative framework, as stated at [47]:
This detailed series of time provisions is carefully calibrated to ensure expeditious resolution of any dispute with respect to payments in the building industry.
This reinforces that statutory rights, including any right to suspend work, arise only where the prescribed steps have been followed.
Non-compliance with those steps may render the builder’s actions invalid.
The legal framework establishes a sequence of requirements that must generally be satisfied before a builder can lawfully suspend work; in Queensland, a builder may stop work for non-payment.
Failure to comply with any one of them may render a suspension unlawful and expose the builder to serious legal consequences.
| Step | What You Must Do | Why It Matters |
| 1 | Ensure payment is legally due | No right exists without valid entitlement |
| 2 | Issue a compliant payment claim | Required under contract or the BIF Act |
| 3 | Wait for response or payment | Other party must be given opportunity |
| 4 | Issue notice of intention to suspend | Mandatory in most cases |
| 5 | Allow required time to pass | Prevents premature suspension |
| 6 | Confirm compliance with contract | Avoid breaching contractual terms |
Risks of Wrongfully Stopping Work
The most significant legal risk associated with a builder stopping work for non-payment in Queensland is that the builder’s conduct may amount to repudiation of the contract.
Repudiation arises where a party, by words or conduct, evinces an intention no longer to be bound by the contract or to perform it only in a manner substantially inconsistent with its obligations.
In Shevill v Builders Licensing Board (1982) 149 CLR 620, Gibbs CJ stated at [6]:
Such a contract may be repudiated if one party renounces his liabilities under it – if he evinces an intention no longer to be bound by the contract … or shows that he intends to fulfil the contract only in a manner substantially inconsistent with his obligations and not in any other way …
A builder who suspends work without a lawful basis may fall within this principle because ceasing work is inconsistent with the obligation to carry out and complete the works in accordance with the contract.
The assessment is objective and focuses on the character of the conduct rather than the builder’s subjective intention.
The application of this principle in the context of building contracts is illustrated in Carr v JA Berriman Pty Ltd (1953) 89 CLR 327 at [7]:
If, on the other hand, no such right had accrued to the builder, that letter is itself a repudiation of the building contract by the builder and entitles the building owner to sue forthwith to recover the damages, if any, which he suffers by loss of the contract.
This makes clear that where a builder acts without a contractual or legal entitlement, ceasing performance may itself constitute repudiation.
Exposure to Damages Claims
Where a builder wrongfully suspends work, and the contract is terminated, the builder may be exposed to substantial claims for damages.
Those damages may include the cost of completing the works, delay losses, and any additional costs incurred by the principal in engaging replacement contractors.
The measure of damages is governed by ordinary contractual principles.
In AMEV-UDC Finance Ltd v Austin (1986) 162 CLR 170, the High Court confirmed at [3]:
The appellant is in the position of a plaintiff in an ordinary action for damages for breach of contract… [and] is entitled to recover such damages as it can prove that it has sustained as a result of the breach.
This principle applies equally in the construction context.
If a builder’s suspension of work constitutes a breach, the builder may be liable for all loss flowing from that breach, subject to the usual rules of causation and remoteness.
Importantly, those losses may significantly exceed the amount in dispute, particularly on large construction projects.
Loss of Contractual and Statutory Entitlements
Wrongful suspension may also result in the builder losing the benefit of contractual and statutory rights.
A builder who fails to comply with the contractual or statutory framework may forfeit the ability to rely on those rights going forward.
The Security of Payment regime, in particular, is structured and procedural, and its protections depend upon strict compliance.
In Dualcorp Pty Ltd v Remo Constructions Pty Ltd (2009) 74 NSWLR 190, Allsop P observed at [2]:
A party… should not be able to re-ignite the adjudication process at will… merely because it is dissatisfied with the result of the first adjudication.
While that case concerned repeated claims, it reflects the broader principle that statutory rights must be exercised within defined limits.
Similarly, contractual rights are governed by ordinary principles of enforcement.
In Ankar Pty Ltd v National Westminster Finance (Queensland) Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 549, the High Court stated at [6]:
Discharge… is governed by the ordinary principles of the law of contract.
This reinforces that a failure to comply with contractual mechanisms may deprive a party of the protections those mechanisms provide.
Commercial and Practical Consequences
Beyond legal liability, wrongful suspension of work can have significant practical consequences.
These may include project delay, increased costs, disruption to other contractors, and deterioration of the commercial relationship between the parties.
Construction projects typically involve multiple stakeholders and tightly coordinated timelines.
An unjustified suspension may trigger cascading delays and disputes that extend beyond the immediate payment issue.
The decision to stop work is therefore a legally and commercially significant step that must be grounded in a clear and defensible entitlement.
Key Takeaways – Can a Builder Stop Work for Non-Payment
Whether a builder can stop work for non-payment in Queensland depends on a careful interaction between contractual rights, statutory regimes, and common law principles.
Non-payment alone does not automatically justify suspension.
The builder must first establish a valid entitlement to payment, comply with any contractual mechanisms, and satisfy all applicable statutory preconditions.
The legal framework is structured and procedural, particularly under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld), and requires strict adherence at each stage.
Failure to comply with these requirements may render the suspension unlawful.
In those circumstances, the builder risks the suspension being characterised as repudiation, exposing them to termination and substantial damages claims.
The authorities make clear that the consequences of getting this wrong can extend far beyond the unpaid amount in dispute.
Stopping work is therefore not simply a commercial decision, but a legally significant step that must be grounded in a clear and defensible entitlement.
Can a Builder Stop Work for Non Payment in Queensland – FAQ
The rules around stopping work for non-payment in Queensland are highly technical and often misunderstood.
Below are answers to the most common questions builders and contractors ask, covering when you can suspend work, what steps must be followed, and the risks of getting it wrong.
Can a builder legally stop work for non-payment in Queensland?
Yes, but only if there is a lawful basis to do so. A builder must rely on either a contractual right or a statutory right under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld). Simply not being paid is not enough. The builder must ensure the payment claim is valid, required notices have been issued, and any applicable timeframes have expired. Stopping work without satisfying these requirements may expose the builder to claims of breach or repudiation.
Do builders need to give notice before stopping work?
In most cases, yes. Construction contracts and statutory regimes typically require a builder to provide notice before suspending work. This notice identifies the payment default and gives the other party an opportunity to remedy it. Failure to provide proper notice may render the suspension unlawful. Strict compliance with notice requirements is critical, as even minor defects in timing or content can invalidate the builder’s right to stop work.
What happens if a builder stops work for non-payment without a legal right?
If a builder stops work without a valid legal basis, their conduct may amount to a breach of contract or even repudiation. This allows the principal to terminate the contract and claim damages. Those damages can include completion costs, delay losses, and other financial impacts. In many cases, the builder’s exposure may significantly exceed the amount originally in dispute, making wrongful suspension a high-risk decision.
Does partial payment count as non-payment?
It can, depending on the circumstances. Partial payment may still constitute non-payment if the unpaid portion is legally due under the contract or statute. However, if the shortfall arises from a legitimate dispute, such as defects or set-off claims, the position becomes more complex. Builders must carefully assess whether the unpaid amount is presently recoverable before taking action, as acting prematurely may invalidate any right to suspend work.
Can a builder stop work for non-payment if the invoice is disputed?
Not automatically. A disputed invoice does not necessarily entitle a builder to suspend work. The builder must consider whether the dispute affects the legal entitlement to payment under the contract or the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld). In many cases, disputes are intended to be resolved through contractual mechanisms or adjudication rather than suspension. Stopping work in the face of a genuine dispute may be risky unless clearly permitted by law.
What is the role of the Security of Payment laws in stopping work for non-payment?
Security of Payment laws provide a statutory framework for recovering progress payments. They set out a structured process involving payment claims, payment schedules, and adjudication. In some circumstances, these laws also permit suspension of work, but only after strict compliance with procedural requirements. The regime is designed to maintain cash flow while disputes are resolved, meaning builders must follow each step carefully to rely on its protections.
Can a builder suspend work without a written contract?
It is more difficult but not impossible. Even without a formal written contract, statutory rights under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld) may still apply if there is a construction contract within the meaning of the Act and the contract is not excluded from Chapter 3. However, the absence of clear contractual terms increases uncertainty around payment entitlements and notice requirements. Builders in this situation face greater legal risk and should be cautious before suspending work, as proving entitlement and compliance may be more challenging.
How long must a builder wait before stopping work for non-payment?
The timeframe depends on the contract and the applicable legislation. Typically, a builder must first issue a payment claim, allow time for a response or payment, and then provide notice of intention to suspend. Only after the relevant notice period has expired can work be lawfully suspended. These timeframes are strictly enforced, and acting too early may invalidate the builder’s right to suspend.
Can stopping work for non-payment affect a builder’s future payment claims?
Yes. Wrongful suspension may result in the builder losing the right to claim further payments under the contract. It may also undermine the builder’s ability to rely on the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld). Courts may treat the suspension as a breach, which can affect the builder’s overall entitlement. For this reason, stopping work should only occur after ensuring full compliance with all legal requirements.
Is the law the same across all Australian states?
No. Each state and territory has its own Security of Payment legislation. In Queensland, that legislation is the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld). The procedures, terminology, exclusions, and timeframes differ between jurisdictions.
