New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adjudication under construction contracts act

Legal area

Court

22 Aug 2023

UNITED CIVIL CONSTRUCTION LTD v HAYFIELD SHA LTD (IN LIQ) [2023] NZCA 377

Citation

[2023] NZCA 377
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held continuation of the liquidators' negotiation strategy was not wrong or unreasonable given the complicated staged works, interdependencies between landowners, disputes over workmanship, incentives for landowners to cooperate to obtain titles, and the significant cost, delay and complexity that multi-party litigation would impose on creditors; leave to pursue adjudication was refused because outstanding claims could be resolved by negotiation or expert referral and were not shown to require adjudication; disclosure of funding agreements was refused because no persuasive, tangible…
20 Sept 2022

DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION LTD v MACKENZIE [2022] NZHC 2400

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2400
Court

High Court

DCL was entitled to costs on a category 2B basis for filing the set-aside application because it had a valid counterclaim exceeding the demand when it filed; Mr Mackenzie must pay costs for steps taken after he paid the Tribunal award on 10 August 2022; costs of the aborted liquidation filing are to lie where they fall.
16 Mar 2021

DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED v MACKENZIE [2021] NZHC 546

Citation

[2021] NZHC 546
Court

High Court

The reservation/retention of title clause relied on did not establish a caveatable beneficial interest or equitable charge in the land; there was no express contractual provision giving a right to enter and remove fixtures that could support an equitable interest, and the adjudicator's charging order related only to a small sum that has been paid; accordingly Development Construction Ltd failed to show a reasonably arguable caveatable interest and the caveat must be removed.
5 Dec 2019

OMID CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT GROUP LTD v TARGET PAINTERS & DECORATORS LTD [2019] NZHC 3189

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3189
Court

High Court

The defendant failed to demonstrate a genuine and substantial dispute about the debt or to rebut the statutory presumption of insolvency with evidence of solvency, so the court declined to restrain advertising or stay the liquidation application and adjourned the liquidation for advertising.
30 Nov 2017

BODY CORPORATE 200012 v KEENE & ORS [2017] NZHC 2953

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2953
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed BC12's application and appeal: the adjudicators acted within the statutory jurisdiction conferred by the CCA and addressed matters of contractual interpretation and substance (not jurisdictional error); any alleged legal errors were not material in light of the CCA's purpose to ensure interim payment and cashflow; a subsequent adjudicator may treat a prior adjudication as binding pro tem and must not re-adjudicate the same or substantially the same dispute; s68 confidentiality does not bar reliance on a prior determination for the purposes of a related adjudication or enfo…
7 Jul 2017

DHC ASSETS LIMITED v ARNERICH [2017] NZHC 1460

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1460
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was declined because the defendant established a tenable defence that material factual issues exist — notably whether Vaco acquired the land and liabilities beneficially or as trustee (meaning proceeds were not company assets) and whether the retentions were properly payable — such that there is a real question to be tried and the matter requires full hearing.
14 Apr 2016

NEW ZEALAND FIRE SPRINKLER PROTECTION LTD v AFS TOTAL FIRE PROTECTION LTD [2016] NZHC 690

Citation

[2016] NZHC 690
Court

High Court

The adjudicator's determination was set aside because the appointment and process breached statutory requirements and natural justice, the adjudicator failed to disclose a relevant conflict, the decision gave inadequate reasons and included an unlawful award of liquidation costs, and there was no adjudicable dispute such that the adjudication was an abuse of process; costs were awarded against the claimant AFS and not against the adjudicator absent evidence of bad faith.
16 Apr 2012

SOUTH PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL LIMITED V UNITED TELECOMS LIMITED HC WHA CIV 2012-488-202

Citation

openlaw-cac3c6e4_4170_4467_99a1_41f17d661fa2.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court continued the existing interim freezing order but limited its monetary scope to NZD 350,000 in respect of scrap and proceeds in New Zealand because of demonstrated concerns about UTL's conduct and unreliable affidavit evidence; final orders were deferred pending either deposit of a suitable amount into a local trust account or oral explanation from UTL's director, with the matter adjourned for further conference.
6 Jul 2011

HOLMES CONSTRUCTION WELLINGTON LIMITED V FIRTH HC AK CIV-2010-404-007674

Citation

openlaw-69b6588f_d22e_4337_81af_eb2b98cc81e1.pdf
Court

High Court

The stay was granted and the bankruptcy proceedings adjourned pending appeal because the balance of convenience favored preserving the appellant's right to appeal while protecting the plaintiff from further injustice; this was achieved by conditioning the stay on payment by the second defendant of outstanding costs of $33,356.49 within 14 days, reflecting the court's discretion to impose financial conditions where appropriate.
24 Jun 2008

TAYLER V LAHATTE AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2007-404-6843

Citation

openlaw-b5491cb1_0439_48a6_b83f_a42362a38c70.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held that the adjudicator breached natural justice and committed procedural and jurisdictional errors by conducting and relying on a site visit that involved questioning contrary to his prior indication, refusing to permit or obtain an expert despite clearly divergent cost estimates, and substituting a lay assessment for expert evaluation; those errors rendered the determination unlawful and it was quashed with consequential relief.