- LibraryYour organisation's submissions, filed as they are uploaded→
- SearchBoolean and plain-English search across your submissions→
- DraftingSopalAI drafts from your precedents, with tracked changes→
- ComputerWorks through a matter's files on an isolated machine→
- Privacy & securityWhere your documents are kept and who can see them→
Library
Each set of submissions is read and filed as it is uploaded.
| Document | State | Pages | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adjudication applicationSubcontractor v Head contractor | QLD | 46 | ReadingFiled |
| Adjudication responseBuilder v Developer | NSW | 38 | ReadingFiled |
| Further submissionsElectrical contractor v Builder | QLD | 12 | ReadingFiled |
| Adjudication applicationFormwork contractor v Builder | VIC | 61 | ReadingFiled |
| Adjudication responseHead contractor v Principal | QLD | 54 | ReadingFiled |
Search
Answers show the paragraphs they came from, opened at the page.
Which of our submissions argued the payment schedule was given late?
One application makes that argument.
Adjudication application – ABC Subcontractor v DEF Head Contractor, Part D. The payment schedule was given on the sixteenth business day, one day out of time. p 9
D. The payment schedule was not given within time
41.The claimant gave Payment Claim 14 to the respondent at 3.47 pm on Tuesday, 3 March 2026, by email to the address nominated in item 22 of the Contract Particulars.
42.The Contract does not fix a period for giving a payment schedule shorter than the period allowed by the Act. The respondent was therefore required to give a payment schedule within 15 business days after the payment claim was given: s 76(1) of the Act.
43.The fifteenth business day after 3 March 2026 was Tuesday, 24 March 2026. No day in that period is excluded from the definition of “business day” in schedule 2 of the Act.
44.The respondent’s document headed “Payment Schedule – PC14” was sent by email at 6.12 pm on Wednesday, 25 March 2026. It was given on the sixteenth business day, one day out of time.
Drafting
Drafts from your precedents, with tracked changes.
The “draft assessment” of 24 March 2026 was not a payment schedule
45.The claimant anticipates that the respondent will contend that the email sent by its contract administrator at 5.58 pm on 24 March 2026, attaching a spreadsheet headed “PC14 – draft assessment (subject to review)”, was a payment schedule given within time.
46.It was not. A payment schedule must identify the payment claim to which it responds and state the amount of the payment, if any, that the respondent proposes to make: s 69 of the Act. The draft assessment was plainly deficient.
SopalAI · replaced a conclusion with the two facts that support it
Computer
Works through a matter’s files and shows each step.
Demo
Finding how a point was argued before, then drafting it into a new matter.
Details
- Price
- First month free. Then A$140 a month for the first user and A$90 a month for each additional user.
- Credits
- 100 SopalAI credits per user each month. Uploading, Boolean search, reading and exporting use none.
- Every State
- Submissions under any Australian State or Territory’s Security of Payment legislation.
- Not legal advice
- SopalAI is an AI model. Check its work before you rely on it or file it. Sopal does not give legal advice.
Setting Sopal Workspace up for your organisation? Tell us about it.