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 resolution process in New Zealand for resolving building and construction disputes, offering a fast and relatively straightforward process for resolving disputes under construction contracts.

The Act prevents an unwilling party from delaying or avoiding the adjudication process. A claimant can secure the immediate appointment of an adjudicator without any consultation or agreement with any other party required, and every party will be bound by the outcome whether or not they choose to participate. This makes adjudication an effective and important dispute resolution tool.

Ten fast facts about construction contract disputes and adjudication

 

1. What is a construction contract?

A construction contract is a contract for carrying out construction work which has a broad definition and includes construction, alteration, repair, restoration, maintenance, extension, demolition, dismantling or removal of any building or structure.

Construction work was extended in 2015 to include design, engineering and quantity surveying, so these consultants can also access the payment protections of the Act including the right to suspend work for non-payment and also the adjudication procedures to resolve payment disputes. The flip side is that those who undertake construction work will be subject to claims for breach of contract, breach of the statutory warranties under the Building Act 2004, and breach of requirements of reasonable care and skill in relation to their work.

2. Does the contract need to be in writing?

A construction contract does not need to be in writing to be covered by the Act.

A demand for payment for work undertaken under a construction contract (known under the Act as a payment claim) does however need to be in writing and comply with the requirements of the Act to be valid[1] so as to engage the default liability payment provisions and entitlement to suspend work under the Act.

3. What types of disputes can be referred to adjudication?

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 fails to provide a payment schedule in response within the period mandated under s 22 of the Act or fails to pay the whole of the scheduled amount by the due date for payment, a determination that the payer is liable to pay the whole of the unpaid portion of the claimed or scheduled amount may be made by an adjudicator, without the claimant having to prove its entitlement to payment on the merits under the contract.

Claim on merits

Disputes about the substantive rights and obligations of the parties. Typical claims for payment and rights and obligations determinations might include:

  • contract interpretation disputes;
  • whether particular work constitutes a variation;
  • whether work is defective, creating an obligation (and/or a right) on the part of the contractor to rectify it;
  • extension of time claims including time-related cost claims or downstream liquidated damages claims;
  • whether time is at large;
  • the right to suspend or terminate a contract;
  • assignment rights;
  • issues regarding bonds;
  • entitlement to a Practical Completion Certificate or Final Completion Certificate;
  • entitlement to release of retentions;
  • ownership of plant, equipment and materials;
  • damages claims for breach of contract; and
  • contractual claims for damages for breach of requirements of reasonable care and skill in relation to design, engineering and quantity surveying consultants.

4. What if the contract has a dispute resolution clause referring to mediation or arbitration?

Any party to the contract can still refer disputes to adjudication under the Act, even if the contract provides for a different dispute resolution procedure such as mediation or arbitration. Parties cannot contract out of the Act.

5. Do the parties have to agree on who the adjudicator is?

No. This point is often misunderstood and much time (and money) wasted by parties trying to agree on an adjudicator. Any agreement before the dispute arises is unenforceable and it is often hard to reach agreement (on anything) once a dispute has crystallised. The claimant can request the appointment of an adjudicator from an Authorised Nominating Authority of their choice like the Building Disputes Tribunal[2] without needing the agreement of the other party or even to consult them about the appointment.

6. What is the scope of the adjudicator’s jurisdiction?

An adjudicator may determine whether or not any of the parties to a construction contract is liable to make a payment under the contract, whether there has been a breach of the contract (including a term implied under the Building Act 2004), any questions in dispute about the parties’ rights and obligations under that contract, any ancillary or consequential matters, and/or any additional matters that the parties might agree in writing.

An adjudicator may, in certain circumstances, approve the issue of a charging order in respect of the construction site owned by a party to the construction contract against whom a claim is made in an adjudication, or an associate of that person.

7. How long does it take?

Most disputes are resolved in less than six weeks from the time the process is started.

8. Is there a hearing?

No. The adjudication process takes place entirely on the documents which are typically exchanged/served by email. This makes the process very fast by comparison to litigation or arbitration. In exceptional cases the adjudicator may require a visit to the construction site or convene a conference to discuss or clarify matters but such interventions are extremely rare.

9. Is the adjudicator’s determination final?

The determination of the adjudicator is binding on the parties in the interim and will be binding on the parties and enforceable unless or until the dispute is finally determined by arbitration or by court proceedings, or by agreement.

10. What if the losing party fails to comply with the adjudicator’s determination?

The successful party may apply for the determination to be enforced by entry as a judgment in the District Court[3] and they are entitled to recover their actual and reasonable costs of doing so.

The person against whom enforcement is sought has only five working days to oppose judgment. The Court has no overriding discretion to refuse to enter judgment and can only refuse to do so on very narrow grounds. These are:

  • the amount payable has been paid;
  • there was in fact no construction contract;
  • a condition imposed by the adjudicator has not been met;
  • due to a change in circumstance, not caused by the respondent, it is not possible to comply with the determination; and
  • the date (if any) specified in the adjudication for compliance has not yet passed.

Statutory adjudication under the Act offers an important and effective process for parties to resolve construction disputes promptly and cost effectively. It can be very attractive from a claimant’s perspective given the inability to contract out of the Act, which means that an unwilling respondent cannot delay, avoid or obfuscate the adjudication process.

The fact that any amount determined to be paid by an adjudicator must, except in rare circumstances, be paid within two working days of receipt of the determination enables parties to move quickly to enforce a determination (and obtain charging orders over the construction site in some cases) and suspend work if such payment is not made.  All of these factors combine to provide a very prompt, efficient and cost-effective solution to resolving building and construction disputes and debt recovery.

The Adjudication Process

 

 

[1] More information about the specific requirements for a valid payment claim are available here.

[2] Section 33(4) of the Act. The Building Disputes Tribunal is an Authorised Nominating Authority under the Act.

[3] Additional information about enforcement is available here.

 

 

*Natalia Vila is the Registrar of the Building Disputes Tribunal, which is an Authorised Nominating Authority under the Construction Contracts Act. For information on resolving construction disputes, there are many helpful guides, resources and related information available on BDT’s comprehensive website at https://buildingdisputestribunal.co.nz/

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...

BuildLaw Issue 53

March 2024Download PDF   CONTENTS From the Editor BuildLaw in Brief A cat among pigeons Major changes to seismic building standards Failed waterproofing causes a flood of costs Asking a decisionmaker to take a sneaky peak isn’t a strategically clever...

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...

How do you solve a problem like retentions?

Written by Kate Holland The use of retentions in construction contracts is culturally ingrained in the industry but it is increasingly seen as an outdated and unfair practice. In the UK, there have long been calls to abolish or regulate retentions, but little progress...

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...

BuildLaw Issue 52

December 2023Download PDF   CONTENTS From the Editor BuildLaw in Brief How do you solve a problem like retentions? The “measured duty” to love thy neighbour: Private nuisance and naturally occurring hazards. Disruption claims: Are your project records up to date?...

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...

The losing streak is over: English rugby wins… right to bring claim against contractor

Written by Alexander Lyall Nearly 10 years on, English rugby finally has a victory related to the 2015 Rugby World Cup. In FM Conway Ltd v Rugby Football Union,[1] a company contracted by the English Rugby Football Union (the RFU) for maintenance works at Twickenham...

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...

BuildLaw Issue 51

September 2023Download PDF   CONTENTS BuildLaw in Brief Keep calm and carry on Mainzeal saga ends in the Supreme Court New Zealand: Insurance under Scrutiny Obstructed view review Case in Brief: Esk Valley marae injunction Res judicata and declarations relating...

Take a rain cheque – Full Federal Court of Australia reads common sense into insurance policy

By Alexander Lyall A decision by the Full Federal Court of Australia has provided clarification about the wording of an insurance policy for a construction project. In Acciona Infrastructure Australia Pty Ltd v Zurich Australian Insurance Limited [2023] FCAFC 47,[1] ...

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...

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...

BuildLaw Issue 50

June 2023Download PDF   CONTENTS BuildLaw in Brief: Recent key developments in the construction industry Bad faith and without substantial merit – What it means and what it takes Disgruntled builders lose defective cladding dispute High-rise blues Build-to-Rent:...

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...

Parliament passes sweeping amendments to construction payment regime

By Alexander Lyall Parliament has recently enacted legislation allowing for comprehensive changes to the Construction Contracts Act 2002. The Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Act 2023 passed its third reading on Wednesday 29 March and received Royal...

BuildLaw Issue 49

March 2023Download pdf   CONTENTS Diamond Glass slices damages in airport contract Case in Brief: Craftiness is not an abuse of process (Kennedy Civil Contracting Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) v Richard Crookes Construction Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 99) That...

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...

BuildLaw Issue 48

December 2022Download pdf   CONTENTS The Court of Appeal sounds the all clear and it’s business as usual under the CCA: so issue a payment schedule or pay up! Case in Brief: Builder terminates contract with a “sorry mate… costs are going through the roof” but...

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...

BuildLaw Issue 47

September 2022CONTENTS Competition not working well in residential building suppliesmarket Fire risk – defective cladding litigation heats up Case in Brief: Supreme Court of New South Wales finds forcemajeure clause offered no protection for loss and damage togoods in...

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...

Overhaul coming to the regulation of engineers

By Sam Dorne The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) undertook a consultation in 2021 to reform the regulatory regime for engineers. The reforms will move away from a voluntary accreditation scheme into a formal regulated regime.   Current...

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...

BuildLaw Issue 46

March 2022CONTENTS 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 Case in Brief: Unhelpful expert witness sees homeowners succeed in defective...

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...

BuildLaw Issue 45

March 2022CONTENTS Extensions of time in construction contracts Construction contract procedure and dispute resolution: There really is a reason to pay attention to the boring stuff Principals beware, constructive acceleration is here UK: Important announcement on the...

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...
Skip to content