What if my customer’s contract bans assigning invoices?
An anti assignment clause does not always stop invoice finance, but it has to be dealt with before the facility goes live rather than after. The usual paths are a written consent from the customer, a structure where no notice is served, or leaving that debtor outside the funded ledger. The Personal Property Securities Act limits how far some of these clauses reach on a transfer of receivables. Your lawyer is the one to say whether the wording in your contract actually bites.
The usual ways around the clause
Anti assignment wording turns up most in contracts written by large corporates, government departments and head contractors. There is normally more room than the clause suggests.
- Ask for written consent, which many big customers grant through a standard process
- Use invoice discounting, where the funder does not notify your customer
- Fund the rest of the ledger and leave that one debtor out of the borrowing base
- Fund the same cash flow another way, through a working capital or trade facility
The clause is a negotiating point far more often than it is a wall.
How funders handle it
A funder reviews your major supply contracts during onboarding, so the clause surfaces whether you flag it or not. Flagging it first is better. Where the restricted customer is also your biggest, the workable facility can end up smaller than the ledger suggests. It is fairer to know that before you sign anything. Some funders accept the position under Australia’s personal property securities law and fund anyway. Others want the consent letter on file. That difference is usually what decides which funder suits you.
Not sure where you sit?
Tell us what you need the money for and we’ll give you a straight read on what’s actually available to you.
Last updated 15th July 2026. Reviewed by Authorised Credit Representative 554584 of Australian Credit Licence 414426.