Model Clauses

Ensure an effective and proportionate response in the future should a dispute arise
Download PDFContact Us

Have you checked your model dispute resolution clause lately?

Recommended model clauses are included at the end of this page. You can also download a pdf of our Model Clauses Guide here.

When was the last time you checked your model dispute resolution clauses that you include in your contracts or services agreements? Almost all private dispute resolution processes require the agreement of the parties to engage in the process. Almost always the dispute resolution clauses included in contracts and agreements for services are old, outdated and, in many cases, ineffective and unenforceable. Such clauses are typically added to contracts/agreements at the 11th hour when everything else has been scrutinised, debated, and agreed.

Dispute resolution clauses are usually not seen as particularly contentious or important. At a time of heightened interest and excitement about the subject matter of such contracts, there is often little appetite to talk about something that might be perceived as negative, or indeed threatening towards the relationship. Often the hope or presumption is that it is something that is included in a contract but will never be needed. Unfortunately, our experience tells us that conflict is an almost inevitable consequence of many commercial transactions/business relationships.

Parties already in dispute are highly unlikely to agree on anything, let alone to refer their dispute to a particular dispute resolution process/service. This is what makes good model clauses critical to enabling the prompt, proportionate and cost-effective resolution of disputes, should they arise in the future.

What makes for a good model clause? One that can be effectively and efficiently relied on to enable a dispute to be resolved promptly by whatever process is agreed. Model clauses need to be clear and certain in terms of both the process and the means of securing the appointment of the relevant third party neutral (for example, arbitrator, mediator, expert). Simply referring disputes arising to mediation or arbitration is ineffective and inefficient. Parties routinely spend significant time (and money) arguing over what the process should look like, who to appoint to be the mediator or arbitrator and procedural and timetabling matters. This can all be easily avoided by careful drafting of dispute resolution clauses.

 

Cover of the Model Clauses guide.

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...

Two conditional Certificates do not one final make

By Richard Pidgeon The New South Wales Supreme Court in Parkview Constructions Pty Limited v Futuroscop Enterprises Pty Limited [2023] NSWSC 178 provides insight into the date of practical completion under an AS 4902-2000 contract. Background Parkview Constructions...

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...

High-rise blues

By Richard Pidgeon The lawyers who acted for the body corporate and most unit owners in settling the Spencer on Byron’s leaky building claim have been successfully sued by the body corporate in Body Corporate 207624 v Grimshaw & Co [2023] NZHC 979. The body...
Skip to content