Apply Now

Want to apply for Adjudication?
Application Form
Important information

Below you will find some important information you need to know before applying for adjudication. Please take a minute to read through this page carefully before making your application.

The Notice of Adjudication

The first step in the process is to serve a Notice of Adjudication on the other party or parties to the dispute – these will be the other parties to the construction contract under which the dispute has arisen.

You may also choose to serve the Notice of Adjudication on the owner of the construction site where the owner is not a party to the construction contract and you wish to seek a determination of that owner’s liability under section 30(a) and/or approval for the issue of a charging order under section 30(b).

Applying to the Building Disputes Tribunal

The Building Disputes Tribunal (BDT) is an authorised nominating authority (ANA) under the Construction Contracts Act 2002 (the Act).

Any party to a dispute arising under a construction contract is entitled to apply to us for the appointment of an adjudicator. There is no requirement to try to agree on the identity of the adjudicator with the other party (although of course you are also entitled to do so). Instead, you can apply directly to BDT and we will appoint an appropriately skilled and experienced adjudicator for your case typically within one working day. BDT does not charge the parties a fee to make that appointment.

PLEASE NOTE: an application for appointment of an adjudicator must be made in the period between and including two to five working days after the notice of adjudication is served on the other parties to the adjudication (ie barring the occurrence of any statutory non-working days – if the notice is served on a Monday you cannot make your application to BDT until the Wednesday, Thursday or Friday of that week or the Monday of the following week – if the notice is served on a Friday you cannot make your application to BDT until the following Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday).

 

“Route to the decision” – Scottish court rejects challenge to adjudicator’s decision that did not expressly address a material line of defence

Written by Kate Holland In UK Grid Solutions Limited and Amey Power Services Limited v Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission PLC,[1] the unsuccessful party to an adjudication sought to resist enforcement on the grounds that 1) the adjudicator had failed to address a...

Asking a decision-maker to take a sneaky peek isn’t a strategically clever move: adjudicator’s decision held unenforceable due to breach of without prejudice rules

Written by Maria Cole A party (AZ) brought proceedings in the England and Wales Technology and Construction Court (Court) to enforce the decision of an adjudicator against the respondent (BY).[1] During the adjudication, AZ had placed without prejudice emails before...

Failed waterproofing causes a flood of costs

Written by Sam Dorne Legal battle over failed waterproofing comes to an end after plaintiffs prove their damages at the High Court in duty of care breach. Water water everywhere In the heart of Flat Bush, Auckland, stand the Nikau Apartments – a residential complex...

Mayor Brown is right about why public sector contracts go over time and over budget

Written by Rabin Rabindran and Derek Firth  In his opinion piece (NZ Herald 21 February 2024) Mayor Brown provides a number of reasons for these overruns.  They include an obsession with governance skills rather than a range of skills directly useful to the sector...

High Court soundly dismisses judicial review of adjudication determinations but may inadvertently have put the cat among the pigeons

By Alexander Lyall In Sam Pemberton Civil Ltd v Robertson,[1] the High Court considered applications for judicial review of two related adjudication determinations. In dismissing the applications, the Court underscored some of the key functions of the Construction...

Technocratic payment regime not the priority under the Construction Contracts Act

Written by Alexander Lyall In Dem Home Ltd v New Gate Ltd[1] the High Court considered whether a payment claim had been validly served under the Construction Contracts Act 2002 (the CCA). The decision is an ever-important reminder that the CCA is designed to maintain...

Highly stressful circumstances: Court of Appeal assesses contract in earthquake insurance mess

Written by Alexander Lyall   The Court of Appeal (the Court) has issued a decision in a long-running dispute between a Christchurch homeowner and her insurance and legal advocates. Pfisterer v Claims Resolution Service Limited & Anor[1] contains a close look...

Kane v Venues NSW: The Handrail Tale

Written by Sam Dorne The case of Venues NSW v Kane [2023] NSWCA 192, involving a patron’s fall within the lower concourse of the western grandstand of the McDonald Jones Stadium in Newcastle, Australia, looks at a fundamental legal question surrounding the duty of...

The “measured duty” to love thy neighbour: private nuisance and naturally occurring hazards

Written by Maria Cole A Christchurch landowner, whose property sits at the foot of unstable clifftop land purchased by the Crown following the Canterbury earthquakes, has failed in the Supreme Court to obtain damages in “private nuisance” for the risk of further...

New regulations for building products

Written by Richard Pidgeon The Building (Building Product Information Requirements) Regulations 2022 set out how information about building products contributes to building code compliance. The regulations stipulate that information on how products are to be installed...
Skip to content