Adjudication risks: Email file-share links may not constitute service under WA's SOPA 

What you need to know

A majority in the NSW Court of Appeal case of Reward Interiors Pty Ltd v Tackelly No 8 Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCA 133 considered WA's Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment) Act 2021 (WA) (WA SOPA), and found that:

• an email containing a link to download adjudication review documents, but not directly attaching those documents, was not effective service of documents under section 113(3)(d) of the WA SOPA (Ward P dissented on this point); and
• the one business day time limit to give a copy of any adjudication review application to the other party is a jurisdictional precondition under the WA SOPA, meaning a review adjudicator cannot consider a review application given after this time.

The decision is consistent with a growing trend in Australian case law cautioning against service of adjudication documents by file-sharing links.

What you need to do

• Serve adjudication review applications (and responses) by accepted means, such as by email to the address specified with the documents directly attached; by personal delivery; by leaving the document at the ordinary place of business; or by post to the ordinary place of business. Do not rely on Mimecast, Dropbox, or other file-sharing links as a method of "giving" documents under section 113(3)(d) of the WA SOPA, which contemplates service by email;
• Act within one business day of making an adjudication review application to give copies to the other party (this is a jurisdictional deadline that cannot be extended);
• Consider implications across jurisdictions. While Reward Interiors considers the WA SOPA, the decision may be persuasive as an appellate authority in other jurisdictions. Parties should consider whether they can rely on file-sharing links as a means of service under the various security of payment regimes across the country, where mere "access" to a document may not constitute "giving" a document in compliance with the legislation.

Parties to adjudications may face new restrictions on methods of service under WA's Security of Payment legislation.

On 15 July 2026, the NSW Court of Appeal delivered its decision in Reward Interiors Pty Ltd v Tackelly No 8 Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCA 133, with the majority confirming that service of an adjudication review application by email with a file-sharing link did not satisfy the requirements of section 113 of WA's Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment) Act 2021 (WA) (WA SOPA). The Court also found that the one business day deadline in section 42(3) for giving copies of the application to the other party is a jurisdictional precondition.

Service by Mimecast link did not constitute service under s 113(3) of WA's SOPA

The majority held that the respondent did not "give" an adjudication review application to the appellant by sending an email containing a Mimecast link, and that an email with a file-sharing link does not constitute service by email: [143]-[146] Free JA, with McHugh JA agreeing at [122].

Section 113 of the WA SOPA defines the word "give" to include "serve, send or otherwise provide" and sets out permitted methods for giving documents under WA's SOPA, including by personal delivery, leaving documents at the ordinary place of business, posting documents to the person's ordinary place of business, and emailing documents to a specified email address.

Free JA drew a distinction between "giving" or "providing" a document to someone (where the act of giving results in the recipient being in possession of the document), and providing a means by which that person "can access" the document (where further steps are required by the recipient): [142].

Free JA held that:

• a document may be given or provided "by email" when the document is attached to the email, and that the document will be received by the recipient when the email is received;
• where the only thing given or provided by email is a link to an online repository, the documents are not given or provided "by email", noting that further steps must be taken by the recipient to obtain access;
• the sender may retain the ability to remove or alter documents held in the online repository after the email is sent, which "tells against the notion that when the email was sent the documents themselves were provided to the recipient": [143]-[144].

Free JA also considered section 113(3)(e) of WA's SOPA, which specifically provides for documents to be given by "any other method (including the use of an electronic database, document system or any other means by which a document can be accessed electronically) authorised by the regulations".

Free JA considered that the legislature directly addressed the scenario of enabling access to documents through electronic databases and considered that the legislature addressed alternative means of providing documents by stating that such alternate means had to be "authorised by the regulations". As the regulations to WA's SOPA do not authorise file-sharing links or other electronic databases, Free JA considered this to be a strong indication that such a method is not yet authorised by section 113(3)(d) of WA's SOPA.

Ward P dissented and considered service had been effected by section 113(3)(d).

The contract's service clause does not assist

The Court unanimously held that cl 7.1 of the parties' contract (which deemed notices given if sent by email "in the form of a letter attachment") did not provide for the manner of service for the purposes of section 113(2)(a) of WA's SOPA. Ward P noted that the adjudication review application was not a document "given under the contract documents", and the contract did not oblige or permit the making of the review application, nor did it govern or control its existence [101], with McHugh JA agreeing at [121] and Free JA agreeing at [131].

However, if the construction contract did specify service of relevant WA SOPA documentation by Mimecast link, such service could have been effective under section 113(2) WA SOPA: [147].

Ward P's dissent on service

Ward P dissented on the service point (while agreeing on the jurisdiction issue). Her Honour held in effect that:

• section 113(3)(d) should not be construed narrowly on account of section 113(3)(e) [107];
• when section 113(3)(d) is read with the definition of "give" in section 113(1), a document may be given to a person if it is given, served, sent, or "otherwise provided" to the person by email [108];
• the fact that the recipient had to click on another email and then on the Mimecast link did not mean the documents were not "provided", but once accessed and downloaded, the appellant had the documents in its possession [114]; and
• the concept of something physically travelling with an attachment is not found in the legislation [114].

Application to other jurisdictions

While the Reward Interiors case considered WA's SOPA provisions, its outcome may be likened to case law in other jurisdictions which caution against service by file-sharing links. For example, the use of Dropbox to provide access to adjudication documents was not effective service in the Queensland case of Conveyor & General Engineering Pty Ltd v Basetec Services Pty Ltd [2014] QSC 30, where providing the Dropbox link did not result in the person to be served becoming aware of the contents of the documents (see, for example [37]).

While the reasoning in the Queensland Basetec case was endorsed by Hammerschlag J in NSW in the older decision of Parkview Constructions Pty Limited v Total Lifestyle Windows Pty Ltd t/a Total Concept Group [2017] NSWSC 194 at [76]-[77], Ward P in Reward Interiors cautioned that because Parkview was determined before the now expanded definition of "give" in section 31 of the NSW SOPA (which is similar to section 113 of WA's SOPA on Service of documents), the Parkview case did not assist to interpret section 113 of WA's SOPA (noting that Ward P was in dissent). This suggests that the Parkview case may be of limited assistance in interpreting the service requirements under section 31 of the current NSW SOPA, and that the reasoning in Reward Interiors may be persuasive in NSW.

Ultimately, it appears there is risk in serving adjudication documents by file-sharing links across multiple Australian jurisdictions (at least where service of adjudication materials by file-sharing links is not expressly permitted in the contract or the relevant State's regulations).

Takeaways

This decision has significant practical implications for parties engaged in construction projects under the WA SOPA. The decision may also be seen to represent an emerging body of case law cautioning against service of adjudication documents by file-sharing links in other Australian jurisdictions.

Parties may wish to:

• consider avoiding the use of file-sharing links for service under the WA SOPA, where Mimecast, Dropbox, and similar platforms may not satisfy the service requirements at least under section 113(3)(d);
• attach documents directly to emails. At present, parties serving adjudication documents by email under section 113(3)(d) of the WA SOPA should attach those documents to the email itself so that they are "received" by the recipient's email service when the email arrives;
• consider the practical challenges for large adjudication documents. Where documents are too large for direct email attachment, parties should plan alternative service methods in compliance with relevant SOPA provisions, such as personal delivery, or by post;
• meet the one business day deadline for adjudication review applications: The section 42(3) WA SOPA deadline is jurisdictional, and a review adjudicator may not consider late adjudication review applications.

Authors: Matthew Blycha, Partner; Luke Carbon, Partner; Katherine Swann, Senior Associate; Adam Pollock, Senior Associate