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).

 

Obstructed view review

Written by Maria Cole Introduction In Wynyard Quarter Residents Association Incorporated v Auckland Council and Orams Group Limited,[1] a group of apartment owners filed judicial review proceedings seeking to overturn an Auckland Council decision to grant resource...

Keep calm and carry on: English Court of Appeal overturns controversial High Court ruling and clarifies guiding principles in serial adjudications

By Kate Holland The English High Court caused concern earlier this year when it held that an adjudicator had breached natural justice by holding himself bound by a previous adjudicator’s findings. Now, in Sudlows Ltd v Global Switch Estates 1 Limited,[1] the Court of...

Moving home

Written by Richard Pidgeon A family became dissatisfied with a house removal firm who had shifted their home from Remuera to Katikati. In Stott v Uplifting Homes Ltd [2023] NZHC 1514, the High Court determined the level of compensation after the contract was...

Big loss for insurer in legal battle with Napier Council over leaky building clause

Written by Sam Dorne In a recent case, the Supreme Court of New Zealand ruled in favour of the Napier City Council in an insurance claim involving building defects including weathertightness or “leaky building” issues, in what is seen as a return to the status quo...

Case update: English Court of Appeal confirms ‘useless’ ADR procedure too uncertain to enforce

By Kate Holland In our December 2022 issue of BuildLaw, we reported on a case in the English High Court[1] about an unusual alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedure in a construction contract that was held to be too uncertain to be an enforceable condition...

Disgruntled builders lose defective cladding dispute

By Sam Dorne In Goodman-Jones v Hughey & ors [2023] NZHC 604, two experienced builders brought a claim for damages for a perceived defective installation of cladding for a new build. Despite the action being brought against multiple defendants the Court found that...

Craftiness is not an abuse of process

With cashflow a persistent concern for companies in the construction industry, a recent decision in the New South Wales Supreme Court may alleviate some of the stress. The decision should affirm to struggling parties that there is no problem with taking strategic...

Privileged glimpses: Curtain falls on art gallery’s nuisance ‘human zoo’ exhibit

By Kate Holland The UK Supreme Court has ruled that the London Tate Modern’s public viewing gallery overlooking the luxury glass-walled apartments nearby, is a visual intrusion amounting to the tort of nuisance. The decision in has attracted criticism for prioritising...

Waiver and estoppel arguments raised in interim payment dispute

By Sam Dorne The English Court of Appeal case of A & V Building Solutions Limited v J & B Hopkins Limited has highlighted issues parties face when there is ambiguity in relation to dates for requesting interim payment in construction contracts.[1] The case...

Doing business in Australia? Then you need to know when you still might have to pick up the whole tab

By Maria Cole If you have a commercial contract in Australia, it’s probably governed by Australian law, which includes the proportionate liability regime.[1] Broadly, proportionate liability means if there are multiple parties to a contract and things go wrong, a...
Skip to content