The recent decision in Singh v A1 Home Builders Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 1521 is a cautionary tale about how a simple typo, combined with a tick-the-box approach to electronic service, can spiral into a Supreme Court dispute.
The builder served a payment claim under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (SOPA) and, after no payment schedule was received, lodged an adjudication application. However, when completing the adjudication application form, the builder misspelled the plaintiff’s email address by adding one extra letter. As a result, the adjudicator’s notice of acceptance and the adjudication determination were sent to an email address that did not exist.
The builder’s subsequent service of the adjudication application was also initially sent to the misspelled email address. That error was identified and corrected on the same day. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs, who were not tech-savvy and relied on their son for email communications, argued that the email did not come to their attention at the time. This was because:
a) it was sent by a solicitor in the law firm acting for the builder with whom Mr Singh had no prior dealings; and
b) Mr Singh was mistrustful of emails containing links, having previously been warned about phishing scams and found it difficult to distinguish between legitimate communications and scams.
The plaintiffs only discovered what had occurred in relation to the adjudication when the builder obtained District Court judgment for nearly $290,000 and threatened to pursue a garnishee order.
The court held that the adjudicator’s acceptance of the application had not been properly served on the plaintiffs. Under section 19 of SOPA, an adjudicator is not appointed unless they accept the application by causing notice of acceptance to be served on both the claimant and the respondent. In the absence of that step, the adjudicator had no jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the determination was declared void and the court set aside the District Court judgment.
The Court emphasised that service of the acceptance notice is not a mere technicality; it is a statutory precondition. It marks the point from which the respondent may lodge an adjudication response and triggers the adjudicator’s 10-business-day deadline. Without proper service of the acceptance notice, the adjudication process collapses.
It appears that the builder failed to realise that the adjudicator had used the misspelled email address, despite having identified and corrected the error itself, or failed to appreciate the requirement in section 19 of SOPA for service of the adjudicator’s acceptance notice.
In addition, the builder relied on mechanical compliance with email service of the adjudication application, sending Dropbox links without confirming receipt. Given the plaintiffs’ limited familiarity with email, a simple follow-up phone call or personal service could have avoided the plaintiff’s arguments concerning phishing scams and emails from unknown third parties. While the court was not ultimately required to determine these issues, the time and expense involved in investigating and defending them could have been avoided.
This case is a stark reminder that:
Finally, this was an expensive fight over a procedural point. The builder incurred the risk of significant legal costs in the Supreme Court rather than addressing the substantive dispute. It is a cautionary tale that procedural shortcuts and aggressive litigation strategies can backfire.
This communication is sent by Kreisson Legal Pty Limited (ACN 113 986 824). This communication has been prepared for the general information of clients and professional associates of Kreisson Legal. You should not rely on the contents. It is not legal advice and should not be regarded as a substitute for legal advice. The contents may contain copyright.
tristan.cockman@kreisson.com.au
Special Counsel | 02 8239 6512
