Fees

BDT provides a fully administered Mediation service. To ensure that the cost of Mediation is proportionate to the amount in dispute, our Fees are based on the amount at issue.

The Fees and Expenses for BDT’s mediation services may alter from time to time, however the Fees in relation to any particular Mediation services shall be those that appear on BDT’s Website at the time the Application for Mediation is made. Reference should also be made to Appendix 1 of the Mediation Rules.

Preliminary Payment must be made to BDT either before or immediately after the submission of the Application for Mediation. The Preliminary Payment is a payment toward the Mediation Fee, to be calculated in accordance with the Applicant’s reasonable estimate of the aggregate amount in dispute.

The amount of the Preliminary Payment to be paid as security for the Mediation, and the rates for additional Mediation time over and above a period of 8.0 hours on any given Day are as follows:

Value of Dispute Preliminary Payment:
includes cost of mediation up to 8.0 hours per Day
Additional time: Hourly rate for time beyond 8.0 hours on any Day
≤ $ 99,999.99 $8,500.00 $550.00
$100,000.00 ≤ $ 249,999.99 $9,250.00 $600.00
$250,000.00 ≤ $ 499,999.99 $10,000.00 $650.00
$500,000.00 ≤ $ 999,999.99 $10,750.00 $700.00
≥ $1.0M $11,500.00 $750.00
Rights and obligations dispute $10,000.00 $650.00

All Expenses incurred by BDT in relation to the Mediation are additional to the Preliminary Payment and are charged at cost. Such Expenses may include for example, travel costs and accommodation, room and equipment hire, and refreshments.

Preliminary Payment

Preliminary Payment must be made to BDT either before or immediately after the submission of the Application for Mediation. The Preliminary Payment is a payment toward the Mediation Fee, to be calculated in accordance with the Applicant’s reasonable estimate of the aggregate amount in dispute.

No administrative or procedural steps will be taken by BDT in relation to the appointment of a Mediator until the Preliminary Payment has been paid in full.

For the purpose of calculating the value of the dispute, the Parties must include GST, value added tax, or any other similar tax which might apply.

Interest will not be taken into account unless the interest claims exceed the aggregate principal amount, in which case the Mediation Fee will be calculated on the value of the interest claim alone.

The Preliminary Payment for Mediation includes all advance preparation time and attendances by the Mediator at a Mediation session for one Day or part Day (a Day is defined as the 8.0-hour period between 9.00am and 5.00pm on any given Day of the year). Any extra time required for attendances on the duties of the Mediation beyond 8.0 hours on any one Day is charged on an hourly basis. The Preliminary Payment also includes a non-refundable administration fee of $1,250.00 which amount is payable in full, whether or not the claim is settled, or the Mediation Agreement is withdrawn by the Parties, or a Settlement Agreement is made prior to the Mediation.

The Preliminary Payment does not include the usage, hire, and cost of facilities and support services for or in connection with the Mediation.

Supplementary Advances - Disbursements

Prior to the first Mediation session, BDT may request a supplementary advance from the Parties towards the expected Fees and Expenses of the Mediation, including the Mediation Fees where it is anticipated that more than one Day of Mediation will be required, and/or to meet travel costs, accommodation, and venue hire.

During the course of the Mediation, BDT may from time to time request one or several further supplementary, interim, and/or final advances and deposits from the Parties towards the Fees or Expenses of the Mediation, incurred or to be incurred on behalf of, or for the benefit of, the Parties. All such advances are to be paid into the trust account of BDT on demand.

Any interest which may accrue on such deposits will be retained by BDT as its own property.

If any required deposit or advance is not paid in full within three Days after receipt of the request, the Registrar will so inform the Parties in order that one or another of them may make the required payment. If payment is not made within a further three Days, the Registrar may order the suspension or termination of the Mediation.

As soon as practicable after the Mediation is concluded, BDT will render a final statement of accounting to the Parties and will reimburse any unexpended balance of the security monies to the Parties in the proportions paid by each Party, unless otherwise directed by the Parties.

When is payment required?

The Preliminary Payment must be made to BDT either before or immediately after submission of the Application for Mediation.

Supplementary Payment will be required to be made at least five Days prior to the first scheduled Mediation session, towards the expected Fees and Expenses of the Mediation, including Mediation Fees where more than one Day is anticipated to be required, and/or to meet Expenses incurred or to be incurred on behalf of, or for the benefit of, the Parties.

Further Supplementary Payment will be required to be made if the Fees and Expenses payable in relation to the Mediation are greater than the security held.

The Parties must pay any Supplementary Payment within three Days of receipt of notification by BDT of such additional Fees and Expenses.

BDT will generally require payment of all Fees and Expenses in advance of delivery of the Mediation services. No administrative or procedural steps will be taken by BDT or the Mediator while any payment is outstanding under these Rules.

Liability for payment

The Parties are free to make any arrangements as between them for payment of the Mediation Fees and Expenses.

However, and notwithstanding any agreement as between the Parties, the Parties will at all times be jointly and severally liable for the Mediation Fees and Expenses, together with any additional costs howsoever incurred by BDT in recovering any overdue monies on a full indemnity basis.

Methods of payment

Payment of all BDT Fees and Expenses may be made by direct credit, bank transfer, or by credit card (Visa and MasterCard only). A merchant transaction fee of 2.95% is payable in addition to the published BDT Fee for all credit card payments.

All Fees, Expenses, and costs related to the Mediation will be invoiced in New Zealand dollars, but may be paid in other convertible currencies at rates prevailing at the time of payment, provided that any transfer and/or currency exchange charges must be borne by the payer.

Cancellation Fees

In any case where a Party notifies BDT in writing that a scheduled Mediation session is to be vacated, whether or not the dispute between the Parties has been settled, or the Mediation session is adjourned by agreement, or the Application for Mediation is withdrawn or terminated by the Parties or the Mediator for any reason whatsoever, and the notice is received by BDT (or the termination is made) during ordinary business hours between ten and six Days from and including the date of the scheduled Mediation session, BDT may charge a Cancellation Fee in the amount of 50% of the Mediation daily rate for the entire period of time set aside for attendances on the Mediation.

If such notice is received, or termination is made, five Days or less from and including the date of the scheduled Mediation session, BDT may charge a Cancellation Fee in the amount of 75% of the Mediation daily rate for the entire period of time set aside for attendances on the Mediation.

In the event that the dispute is settled, or the Mediation Agreement is withdrawn by the Parties, the Mediation Fees and Expenses incurred prior to that date, including any entitlement to Cancellation Fees, will be deducted from the amount paid as security for the Mediation.

The balance of the security monies will be refunded to the Parties in the proportions in which the security payment has been made, unless the Parties agree otherwise and instruct BDT accordingly in writing within five Days of notice of settlement or withdrawal of the Mediation Agreement.

In the event that the Mediation Fees and Expenses are greater than the amount held as security, the Parties must pay the balance within three Days of receipt of notification by BDT of such additional Fees and Expenses.

“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...
Skip to content