Wind, Money and Adjudication: Lessons from a $21 Million SOPA Showdown

If you thought the Security of Payment Act (SOPA) was just for minor payment disputes over a few thousand dollars, think again. In Goyder Wind Farm 1 Pty Ltd v GE Renewable Energy Australia Pty Ltd (2025), the Supreme Court of South Australia confirmed that SOPA is not just for minor disputes, it can handle million-dollar adjudications, including one worth $21,029,854.77.

This case is a must-read for contractors, project managers and legal advisors working in renewable energy and large-scale infrastructure. But beyond the headline figure, it offers some valuable insights into how SOPA operates and how contractors can use SOPA strategically.

1. Staggering claims: smart and legitimate

One of the key takeaways from the case is that contractors are not required to bundle all their claims into one adjudication. GE Renewable Energy submitted multiple payment claims over time, each covering different aspects of delay costs. Goyder argued this was an abuse of process, essentially saying, “You should have put it all in one claim.”

The Court disagreed.

Under SOPA, so long as the claims relate to different reference dates and do not overlap, contractors are free to stagger them. And there are plenty of good reasons why they might do so:

• Timing: Some costs may not be fully quantified yet.
• Resources: Preparing a full claim takes time and money.
• Strategy: Smaller claims may be easier to win or settle.
• Tactics: Keeping the principal engaged (or guessing) can be part of a broader commercial approach.

The Court recognised that SOPA is designed to facilitate cash flow and not to punish contractors for not presenting their entire case in one go.

2. Contractual “shall” vs statutory “may”

The contract in question said the contractor “shall” submit all claims for the month. Sounds mandatory, right?

Not so fast.

The Court implicitly found that this kind of clause is inconsistent with SOPA, which gives contractors a statutory right to make claims within a defined timeframe, regardless of what the contract says. In South Australia, that timeframe is six months from when the work was last carried out. In New South Wales, it is twelve months.

Therefore, while the contract might say “you must claim everything this month,” SOPA says, “you can claim later.”

This is a reminder that contractual obligations do not override statutory rights. Contractors should be aware of their rights under SOPA and not be deterred by overly restrictive contract language.

3. SOPA covers renewable energy projects

This case involved the construction of a wind farm, including civil works and delay costs. The Court had no hesitation in applying SOPA to this kind of large-scale renewable energy project.

This is important. As the energy transition accelerates, more contractors will be working on solar farms, wind farms, battery installations and grid upgrades. SOPA applies to these projects just like it does to traditional construction.

And yes, even multi-million-dollar claims are fair game.

4. Anshun estoppel does not apply to SOPA

Goyder’s legal team argued that GE Renewable Energy should have included all its delay cost claims in the first adjudication. They relied on the Anshun estoppel principle that prevents a party from raising a claim in later proceedings if it was so closely connected to an earlier matter that it would have been unreasonable not to raise it then.

In short: “You had your chance. You did not use it. You cannot come back now.”

However, the Court said: Not so fast. SOPA plays by its own rules.

The judgment made it clear that Anshun estoppel does not apply to SOPA adjudications. Why?

• SOPA is a statutory regime, not a traditional court process.
• The Act provides its own mechanisms for managing repetition and abuse, notably section 13(5) (which limits one claim per reference date) and section 22(4) (which prevents the valuation of work where the value has already been determined).
• The Court held that abuse of process arguments must be grounded in the Act itself, not imported from common law doctrines like Anshun.

This is a significant clarification. It confirms that contractors can stagger claims, even if they could have included those claims earlier, so long as they are not repeating previously adjudicated claims or trying to re-litigate the same issues.

Key lessons for contractors

Whether you are working on a wind farm or a warehouse, this case offers some practical guidance:

1. Preserve your rights

Do not let contract wording or project pressure stop you from making valid claims. Know your rights under SOPA and act within the statutory timeframes.

2. Be strategic

Think carefully about how and when to present claims. Staggering claims can be a legitimate tactic. Just avoid repetition or overlap that could trigger an abuse of process argument.

3. Do not assume “One claim to rule them all”

SOPA allows flexibility. Use it. You do not have to put everything into one adjudication and sometimes, it is better not to.

Final thoughts

This case is a powerful reminder that SOPA is not just a tool for small disputes. It is a robust mechanism for resolving serious payment issues in major projects. Contractors who understand how to use it effectively can protect their cash flow, manage risk and navigate complex contractual landscapes with confidence.

Understanding the boundaries of SOPA can turn a payment dispute into a commercial advantage. Kreisson regularly advises contractors and developers on SOPA strategy and adjudication. Reach out to Special Counsel, Tristan Cockman if you need guidance on resolving your SOPA dispute.