Adjudication Fee Calculator

Apply for AdjudicationContact Us
How many issues need to be determined?
For this purpose, an issue would be (for example) a single item of defective work, a single variation, or a single extension of time claim.
Field is required!
Field is required!
Are you claiming a sum of money?
Field is required!
Field is required!
How much are you claiming?
Field is required!
Field is required!
General Claim
Your claim will proceed as a general claim. You will be asked to pay security for the adjudicator's fees in the amount of $10,000.00.

Please note that any amount paid as security is a nominal amount only and is not, and shall not, be considered an estimate of the cost of the adjudication which shall be calculated according to the time engaged on the duties of the adjudication by the adjudicator, together with any expenses incurred by the adjudicator in the execution of those duties.

Field is required!
Field is required!
General Claim
Your claim will proceed as a general claim. You will be asked to pay security for the adjudicator's fees in the amount of $10,000.00.

Please note that any amount paid as security is a nominal amount only and is not, and shall not, be considered an estimate of the cost of the adjudication which shall be calculated according to the time engaged on the duties of the adjudication by the adjudicator, together with any expenses incurred by the adjudicator in the execution of those duties.

Field is required!
Field is required!
General Claim
Your claim will proceed as a general claim. You will be asked to pay security for the adjudicator's fees in the amount of $6,000.00.

Please note that any amount paid as security is a nominal amount only and is not, and shall not, be considered an estimate of the cost of the adjudication which shall be calculated according to the time engaged on the duties of the adjudication by the adjudicator, together with any expenses incurred by the adjudicator in the execution of those duties.


Field is required!
Field is required!
General Claim
Your claim will proceed as a general claim. You will be asked to pay security for the adjudicator's fees in the amount of $6,000.00.

Please note that any amount paid as security is a nominal amount only and is not, and shall not, be considered an estimate of the cost of the adjudication which shall be calculated according to the time engaged on the duties of the adjudication by the adjudicator, together with any expenses incurred by the adjudicator in the execution of those duties.


Field is required!
Field is required!
General Claim
Your claim will proceed as a general claim. You will be asked to pay security for the adjudicator's fees in the amount of $8,000.00.

Please note that any amount paid as security is a nominal amount only and is not, and shall not, be considered an estimate of the cost of the adjudication which shall be calculated according to the time engaged on the duties of the adjudication by the adjudicator, together with any expenses incurred by the adjudicator in the execution of those duties.


Field is required!
Field is required!
General Claim
Your claim will proceed as a general claim. You will be asked to pay security for the adjudicator's fees in the amount of $10,000.00.

Please note that any amount paid as security is a nominal amount only and is not, and shall not, be considered an estimate of the cost of the adjudication which shall be calculated according to the time engaged on the duties of the adjudication by the adjudicator, together with any expenses incurred by the adjudicator in the execution of those duties.


Field is required!
Field is required!
General Claim
Your claim will proceed as a general claim. You will be asked to pay security for the adjudicator's fees in the amount of $15,000.00.

Please note that any amount paid as security is a nominal amount only and is not, and shall not, be considered an estimate of the cost of the adjudication which shall be calculated according to the time engaged on the duties of the adjudication by the adjudicator, together with any expenses incurred by the adjudicator in the execution of those duties.


Field is required!
Field is required!
General Claim
Your claim will proceed as a general claim. You will be asked to pay security for the adjudicator's fees in the amount of $17,500.00.

Please note that any amount paid as security is a nominal amount only and is not, and shall not, be considered an estimate of the cost of the adjudication which shall be calculated according to the time engaged on the duties of the adjudication by the adjudicator, together with any expenses incurred by the adjudicator in the execution of those duties.


Field is required!
Field is required!
General Claim
Your claim will proceed as a general claim. You will be asked to pay security for the adjudicator's fees in the amount of $20,000.00.

Please note that any amount paid as security is a nominal amount only and is not, and shall not, be considered an estimate of the cost of the adjudication which shall be calculated according to the time engaged on the duties of the adjudication by the adjudicator, together with any expenses incurred by the adjudicator in the execution of those duties.


Field is required!
Field is required!
Low Value Claim Scheme (LVC5)
You are eligible to apply for our low value claim scheme (LVC5). The fixed fee for this service is $1,500.00.

If you choose to proceed with your claim as an LVC5 claim you will be entitled to file the following in support of your claim: (a) notice of adjudication; (b) claim submission; (c) contract documents; and (d) up to 15 single sided A4 pages of evidence. No conference of the parties or inspection of construction work is included in the fixed fee.

GENERAL CLAIM

Alternatively, you may proceed with a general claim, in which case you will be asked to pay security for the adjudicator's fee in the amount of $6,000.00.

Please note that any amount paid as security is a nominal amount only and is not, and shall not, be considered an estimate of the cost of the adjudication which shall be calculated according to the time engaged on the duties of the adjudication by the adjudicator, together with any expenses incurred by the adjudicator in the execution of those duties.

Field is required!
Field is required!
Low Value Claim Scheme (LVC10)
You are eligible to apply for our low value claim scheme (LVC10). The fixed fee for this service is $2,500.00.

If you choose to proceed with your claim as an LVC10 claim you will be entitled to file the following in support of your claim: (a) notice of adjudication; (b) claim submission; (c) contract documents; and (d) up to 15 single sided A4 pages of evidence. No conference of the parties or inspection of construction work is included in the fixed fee.

GENERAL CLAIM

Alternatively, you may proceed with a general claim, in which case you will be asked to pay security for the adjudicator's fee in the amount of $6,000.00.

Please note that any amount paid as security is a nominal amount only and is not, and shall not, be considered an estimate of the cost of the adjudication which shall be calculated according to the time engaged on the duties of the adjudication by the adjudicator, together with any expenses incurred by the adjudicator in the execution of those duties.

Field is required!
Field is required!
Low Value Claim Scheme (LVC20)
You are eligible to apply for our low value claim scheme (LVC20). The fixed fee for this service is $3,750.00.

If you choose to proceed with your claim as an LVC20 claim you will be entitled to file the following in support of your claim: (a) notice of adjudication; (b) claim submission; (c) contract documents; and (d) up to 20 single sided A4 pages of evidence. No conference of the parties or inspection of construction work is included in the fixed fee.

GENERAL CLAIM

Alternatively, you may proceed with a general claim, in which case you will be asked to pay security for the adjudicator's fee in the amount of $6,000.00.

Please note that any amount paid as security is a nominal amount only and is not, and shall not, be considered an estimate of the cost of the adjudication which shall be calculated according to the time engaged on the duties of the adjudication by the adjudicator, together with any expenses incurred by the adjudicator in the execution of those duties.

Field is required!
Field is required!
Low Value Claim Scheme (LVC30)
You are eligible to apply for our low value claim scheme (LVC30). The fixed fee for this service is $5,000.00.

If you choose to proceed with your claim as an LVC30 claim you will be entitled to file the following in support of your claim: (a) notice of adjudication; (b) claim submission; (c) contract documents; and (d) up to 30 single sided A4 pages of evidence. No conference of the parties or inspection of construction work is included in the fixed fee.

GENERAL CLAIM

Alternatively, you may proceed with a general claim, in which case you will be asked to pay security for the adjudicator's fee in the amount of $8,000.00.

Please note that any amount paid as security is a nominal amount only and is not, and shall not, be considered an estimate of the cost of the adjudication which shall be calculated according to the time engaged on the duties of the adjudication by the adjudicator, together with any expenses incurred by the adjudicator in the execution of those duties.

Field is required!
Field is required!
Low Value Claim Scheme (LVC40)
You are eligible to apply for our low value claim scheme (LVC40). The fixed fee for this service is $6,250.00.

If you choose to proceed with your claim as an LVC40 claim you will be entitled to file the following in support of your claim: (a) notice of adjudication; (b) claim submission; (c) contract documents; and (d) up to 40 single sided A4 pages of evidence. No conference of the parties or inspection of construction work is included in the fixed fee.

GENERAL CLAIM

Alternatively, you may proceed with a general claim, in which case you will be asked to pay security for the adjudicator's fee in the amount of $8,000.00.

Please note that any amount paid as security is a nominal amount only and is not, and shall not, be considered an estimate of the cost of the adjudication which shall be calculated according to the time engaged on the duties of the adjudication by the adjudicator, together with any expenses incurred by the adjudicator in the execution of those duties.

Field is required!
Field is required!
Low Value Claim Scheme (LVC50)
You are eligible to apply for our low value claim scheme (LVC50). The fixed fee for this service is $7,500.00.

If you choose to proceed with your claim as an LVC50 claim you will be entitled to file the following in support of your claim: (a) notice of adjudication; (b) claim submission; (c) contract documents; and (d) up to 50 single sided A4 pages of evidence. No conference of the parties or inspection of construction work is included in the fixed fee.

GENERAL CLAIM

Alternatively, you may proceed with a general claim, in which case you will be asked to pay security for the adjudicator's fee in the amount of $8,000.00.

Please note that any amount paid as security is a nominal amount only and is not, and shall not, be considered an estimate of the cost of the adjudication which shall be calculated according to the time engaged on the duties of the adjudication by the adjudicator, together with any expenses incurred by the adjudicator in the execution of those duties.

Field is required!
Field is required!
Low Value Claim Scheme (LVC60)
You are eligible to apply for our low value claim scheme (LVC60). The fixed fee for this service is $8,750.00.

If you choose to proceed with your claim as an LVC60 claim you will be entitled to file the following in support of your claim: (a) notice of adjudication; (b) claim submission; (c) contract documents; and (d) up to 60 single sided A4 pages of evidence. No conference of the parties or inspection of construction work is included in the fixed fee.

GENERAL CLAIM

Alternatively, you may proceed with a general claim, in which case you will be asked to pay security for the adjudicator's fee in the amount of $10,000.00.

Please note that any amount paid as security is a nominal amount only and is not, and shall not, be considered an estimate of the cost of the adjudication which shall be calculated according to the time engaged on the duties of the adjudication by the adjudicator, together with any expenses incurred by the adjudicator in the execution of those duties.

Field is required!
Field is required!
Low Value Claim Scheme (LVC80)
You are eligible to apply for our low value claim scheme (LVC80). The fixed fee for this service is $10,000.00.

If you choose to proceed with your claim as an LVC80 claim you will be entitled to file the following in support of your claim: (a) notice of adjudication; (b) claim submission; (c) contract documents; and (d) up to 80 single sided A4 pages of evidence. No conference of the parties or inspection of construction work is included in the fixed fee.

GENERAL CLAIM

Alternatively, you may proceed with a general claim, in which case you will be asked to pay security for the adjudicator's fee in the amount of $10,000.00.

Please note that any amount paid as security is a nominal amount only and is not, and shall not, be considered an estimate of the cost of the adjudication which shall be calculated according to the time engaged on the duties of the adjudication by the adjudicator, together with any expenses incurred by the adjudicator in the execution of those duties.

Field is required!
Field is required!
Low Value Claim Scheme (LVC100)
You are eligible to apply for our low value claim scheme (LVC100). The fixed fee for this service is $12,000.00.

If you choose to proceed with your claim as an LVC100 claim you will be entitled to file the following in support of your claim: (a) notice of adjudication; (b) claim submission; (c) contract documents; and (d) up to 100 single sided A4 pages of evidence. No conference of the parties or inspection of construction work is included in the fixed fee.

GENERAL CLAIM

Alternatively, you may proceed with a general claim, in which case you will be asked to pay security for the adjudicator's fee in the amount of $10,000.00.

Please note that any amount paid as security is a nominal amount only and is not, and shall not, be considered an estimate of the cost of the adjudication which shall be calculated according to the time engaged on the duties of the adjudication by the adjudicator, together with any expenses incurred by the adjudicator in the execution of those duties.

Field is required!
Field is required!

“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...

Mainzeal saga ends in the Supreme Court

By Richard Pidgeon In Yan v Mainzeal Property and Construction Limited [2023] NZSC 113 the Supreme Court upheld damages against Mr Yan in the sum of $39.8 million and the remaining three directors (including Dame Jenny Shipley) jointly with Mr Yan in the sum of $6.6...

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...

Builder terminates contract with a “sorry mate…costs are going through the roof”

By Kate Holland With the construction industry in the grip of labour and supply shortages and spiralling costs, a recent decision of the Queensland court is a timely reminder of the established principles of contractual repudiation. The decision is a warning to...

Ripping up the Resource Management Act

By Adrian Sharma The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) is one of New Zealand’s most important pieces of legislation. It governs what can be built where, when, and how. But more than 30 years on from its introduction, and after numerous amendments, the controversial...

To bespoke or too bespoke – the case of an ADR clause that couldn’t be enforced

By Kate Holland In a recent English decision, the Technology and Construction Court held that a clause in a construction contract requiring the parties to refer a dispute to ADR was a condition precedent to commencing litigation in the courts. However, the Court also...

The Court of Appeal sounds the all clear and it’s business as usual under the CCA: so file a payment schedule or pay up!

By Maria Cole A decision issued by the High Court last year caused a “head in hands” moment in the construction industry in relation to the payment claim regime. The High Court set aside a statutory demand which had been filed to enforce a payment claim as a debt due...

Labelling an image as an ‘artist impression’ was found not to give a developer artistic licence in a claim of misleading and deceptive conduct over an ‘off-the-plan’ premium apartment

By Maria Cole Australian consumer protection law was given an outing in the Federal Court of Australia when a developer merely added the words ‘artist impression’ to a computer generated image it intended to use in its marketing materials for an ‘off-the-plan’...

Fire risk – defective cladding litigation heats up

By Sam Dorne In England and Wales, the Technology and Construction Court in Martlet Homes Ltd v Mulalley & Co Ltd [2022] EWHC 1813 (TCC) (14 July 2022) has released the first decision arising out of a defective cladding dispute following the Grenfell Tower...

WA Supreme Court finds no implied licence to use home design plan

By Kate Holland In a recent Australian case, the WA Supreme Court was unwilling to interpret a contract between a home builder and their client to imply a licence allowing the client to use the builder’s design in whatever way they pleased. Although the case was...

Expert “evidence” needs to be more than just bald assertions to win the day

By Adrian Sharma Leakage issues in a building can be a real dampener. A recent decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) which considered conflicting expert evidence on water ingress issues in a newly built property highlighted the...

An adjudicator’s decision on a construction contract is definitely worth the paper it’s written on!

By Maria Cole It’s only in rare circumstances that the courts will interfere with the decision of an adjudicator on a construction contract. A recent decision out of the English Technology and Construction Court (TCC) considered arguments that an adjudicator acted in...

You break it you bought it: Supreme Court confirms you can’t cancel a contract for failure to satisfy a condition if your own behaviour had a material effect on the failure

By Belinda Green.   We’ve known for a long time that a party can’t rely on a failure to satisfy a condition if the condition failed to satisfy because of their action. But we never really had an explanation of how bad that “failure” had to be until now. In its...

Vicarious liability and subcontractors

By Sam Dorne Liability in tort depends upon proof of a personal breach of duty, with one true exception, vicarious liability. The law of negligence is generally fault based; a defendant is personally liable only for the defendant’s own negligent acts and omissions....

Limitation for payment claims under construction contracts

By Sam Dorne The decision in Hirst v Dunbar [2022] EWHC 41 (TCC) considers the impact of payment provisions in a construction contract, whether through contract or implied terms, and the commencement of the limitation period for payment claims under the contract. It...

Extensions of time in construction contracts

By Jo O’Dea   In an extension of time claim, blame for the delay was a relevant consideration when assessing what was “fair and reasonable”.   In CAJ v CAI [2021] 5 GCA 102, the Singapore Court of Appeal considered the issue of extensions of time in...

Testing the waters: New South Wales Supreme Court considers the prevention principle

By Hannah Aziz  Court provides further confirmation that the prevention principle can be excluded by the terms of a contract.   Introduction Following our recent commentary comparing the operation of the prevention principle in New South Wales and Victoria, the...

Construction contract or product warranty? Not all collateral warranty disputes can be adjudicated

By Belinda Green Collateral warranties might be parasitic on a construction contract, but that doesn’t automatically mean they are one. The individual wording and circumstances need to be considered. In some cases, like in Toppan Holdings Limited v Simply Construction...

When you think the amount of your personal guarantee had a limit – but it didn’t.

In a recent Court of Appeal case, Cancian v Carters [2021] NZCA 397, Carters sought to enforce a personal guarantee against Mr Canican.  The Court dismissed an argument from Mr Cancian that Carters had not notified him that that the limit on his personal guarantee had...

Leaky Home Case: Failure to obtain a building report results in reduction of damages for contributory negligence

By Melt Strydom. Apportionment for contributory negligence allows a court to share the responsibility between parties in circumstances where the test for causation and remoteness of damage justifies it. It doesn’t mean a respondent will not be held liable for...

Do payment claims for retention money ‘fit’ with the standard terms of contract in New Zealand?

By Maria Cole The New Zealand Construction Contracts Act 2002 (CCA) does not explicitly state that payment claims can be used to recover retention money. That said, it is clear the 2015 amendments to the definition of a ‘payment’ under the CCA are broad enough to...

Resolving Construction Disputes – Is Adjudication a Good Option?

By Natalia Vila.   With few exceptions, the Construction Contracts Act 2002 (the Act) applies to every construction contract relating to construction work carried out in New Zealand. Statutory adjudication under the Act is the most commonly used dispute...

Cost certainty for resolving building and construction disputes: Extension to the BDT Adjudication Low Value Claim Scheme

By Belinda Green.   One of the main barriers to dispute resolution is cost: no one wants to risk spending more than the amount they recover. With inflation and construction costs always on the rise, BDT is extending its Low Value Claim (LVC) Scheme for...

Construction Contracts – Enforcement of Debts Due and Mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution Clauses

By Melissa Perkin. The recent High Court decision in Hellaby Resources Services Limited v Body Corporate 197281 [2021] NZHC 554 is of particular interest in the construction sector for several key reasons: it is a rare example where a stay of enforcement of summary...

The Enforceability of Liquidated Damages Clauses

Author: Melissa Perkin  Liquidated damages clauses, a common feature of construction contracts, stipulate the amount of money payable as damages for loss caused by a breach of contract, irrespective of the actual loss suffered. A recent United Kingdom decision of the...

Building and Construction Under COVID-19 Alert Level 4

For information and guidance on what building and construction work can be done at Alert Level 4: ·       Health and Safety protocols at different alert levels, visit CHASNZ COVID-19 and working at the current alert level (chasnz.org); and ·       COVID-19 guidance...

Class-action lawsuit against Harditex cladding fails

By Melissa Perkin.  A second class-action lawsuit[1] brought by a group of 144 homeowners whose homes were clad in Harditex fibre-cement cladding, has failed. The homeowners alleged that Harditex manufacturer James Hardie, between 1987 – 2005, knowingly sold defective...

What types of disputes can be referred to adjudication?

The types of dispute that can be referred to adjudication are listed below:  Default liability claim These are claims for technical non-compliance with the payment regime under the Act. Where a valid payment claim has been served by a payee on a payer and the payer...

Proposed Changes to the Construction Retentions Regime

Author: Hannah Stanley, Building Disputes Tribunal Registrar Despite the introduction of the retentions regime into the Construction Contracts Act 2002 (the Act) in 2017[1], many subcontractor retentions have still been left unprotected and various gaps in the...

Show Me the Money: Seven Things to Remember When Preparing a Payment Claim

By Amy McDonald Are you still waiting on an invoice to be paid that you sent ages ago? Have you done all the work but have nothing to show for it? Unpaid invoices can have a devastating impact on builders and subcontractors. Fortunately, the Construction Contracts Act...

Experts’ duties and conflicting interests – Secretariat Consulting Pte Ltd v A Company

By Belinda Green. Experts may look to amend their terms of engagement, as the English Court of Appeal finds a conflict of interest clause applied to a global brand, despite involving separate experts in different locations, contracting via separate legal entities....

Payment Claims: using Xero to send out your invoices? Don’t forget the important notice

By Catherine Green.   Do you use Xero to send out your invoices? Make sure they are compliant payment claims under the Construction Contracts Act 2002 (Act). The default payment regime under the Act is an efficient and effective way of getting your invoices paid....
Skip to content