Company ordered to pay $12,996.98 for an unpaid cladding invoice after it did not attend (ACAT, 2025)

What happened

The applicant company had issued an invoice (INV0183) to the respondent company for foam supply and installation, cladding supply and installation, and site cleaning. It said $12,610 of that invoice remained unpaid. It applied to the tribunal for the unpaid balance, interest on that balance from 25 August 2025 to 5 November 2025, and the $189 ACAT filing fee (the fee paid to start the case).

Both companies appeared at a directions hearing on 5 November 2025. A directions hearing is a short listing where the tribunal sets the steps and dates for the case. The notice for that hearing had been sent to the respondent at the registered address shown on its ASIC company extract. At that hearing the tribunal listed the matter for a preliminary conference on 11 December 2025 at 11.00 am, and for a final hearing. A preliminary conference is a meeting run by the tribunal where the parties try to narrow or settle the dispute.

The orders and the listing notice for the preliminary conference were sent to the respondent at the same registered address that had been used for the earlier notice. In late November 2025 the tribunal made in-chambers orders (orders made on the papers, without a hearing) moving the final hearing date. Those orders did not cancel the preliminary conference.

On 11 December 2025 the applicant appeared at the preliminary conference. Nobody appeared for the respondent.

What each side wanted

The applicant asked for the $12,610 unpaid balance of the invoice, interest on that sum for the period from 25 August 2025 to 5 November 2025 only, and the $189 filing fee. It relied on the material it had filed, including photographs and text messages, which it said showed it had supplied the materials and done the work, and it told the tribunal the balance of the invoice for that work was still unpaid. The respondent did not appear and made no argument at the preliminary conference.

What the tribunal decided

The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $12,996.98, made up of $12,610 as the unpaid balance of invoice INV0183, $198.98 as interest on that sum from 25 August 2025 to 5 November 2025, and $189 as the cost of the tribunal filing fee.

Payment was ordered to be made by 5.00pm on 8 January 2026, which the member described as four weeks for the respondent to pay. The tribunal also vacated (cancelled) the final hearing that had been listed for 19 March 2026, because the application had been decided.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The member first dealt with whether the respondent had been told about the preliminary conference. The notice had been sent to the respondent's registered address as shown on its current ASIC company extract, and that was the same address used for the earlier directions hearing notice, which the respondent had answered by appearing. On that basis the member concluded the respondent had been served with notice of the preliminary conference.

Being satisfied about service, the member closed the preliminary conference and opened an ex parte hearing, meaning a hearing that goes ahead with only one side present. The member relied on section 47A of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008, which applies where the tribunal requires a party to appear and that party does not. Under that section the tribunal may decide the application if the absent party is the respondent, or continue with the hearing in the party's absence. Rule 56 of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Procedures Rules 2024 says much the same thing for a party who does not attend a preliminary conference or mediation: the tribunal may proceed in that party's absence, or decide the application if the absent party is the respondent.

The member then decided the application on the written application, the material filed, and the applicant's oral submissions that it had performed the work for the respondent and that the balance of the invoice for that work remained unpaid. The interest period was limited to what the applicant asked for, which ran only to 5 November 2025, and the filing fee was allowed as a cost of bringing the case.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, chasing the unpaid balance of an invoice from another business, this decision shows two things about how the rules are applied. First, a party who does not turn up does not stop the case: where the tribunal is satisfied the respondent was properly notified, section 47A of the ACAT Act and rule 56 of the Procedures Rules let it hear the matter with only the other side present and decide the application. Second, the tribunal still needs to be satisfied the claim is made out, so the applicant was asked to point to its material and explain what work was done and what was left unpaid.

The decision also shows that service on a company is normally judged by the registered address on its current ASIC extract, and that it helped here that the same address had already reached the respondent for an earlier listing it attended. It is worth noting that the tribunal awarded interest only for the period the applicant asked for, and that the filing fee was added to the amount ordered.

For most people and small businesses in this kind of dispute, the usual first step is a written demand that identifies the invoice, the amount outstanding, any interest claimed and a date for payment, and only then an application to the tribunal if the money still does not arrive.

How to apply: our step-by-step guide to a ACAT application. More decisions: ACAT cases and unpaid debts and invoices.

Source: CLAD ACT PTY LTD ACN 673 849 379 v NSW PBX GROUP PTY LTD ACN 652 102 497 (Civil Dispute) [2026] ACAT 14 (read the full decision). This summary was prepared from the published decision for general information. It is not legal advice, and the tribunal’s own reasons are the authoritative record.