New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Payment claims and payment schedules

Legal area

Court

17 May 2023

SENIO HOLDINGS LTD v EVERGREEN HOMES & CONSTRUCTION LTD [2023] NZHC 1191

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1191
Court

High Court

The building contract, read as a whole and in context, required the builder to issue payment claims compliant with the Construction Contracts Act; progress claim 11A was not a valid payment claim and was not verified as required by the contract, so there was a substantial dispute as to whether the amount was owing or due; accordingly the statutory demand was set aside under s 290(4)(a) of the Companies Act 1993.
20 May 2020

ALASKA CONSTRUCTION + INTERIORS AUCKLAND LIMITED v LAHATTE & ANOR [2020] NZHC 1056

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1056
Court

High Court

The adjudicator lawfully determined the claim based on the statutory consequence of Alaska's failure to provide a payment schedule to the December payment claim; the adjudicator was not required to resolve the wider underlying contractual allocation disputes to give effect to s 48, there was no breach of natural justice or unreasonable exercise of power, and the costs award was not shown on judicial review to be flawed; accordingly the judicial review application is dismissed.
19 Jul 2018

ANDERSON AND ANOR v SWINDELLS & ANOR [2018] NZHC 1803

Citation

[2018] NZAR 1375
Court

High Court

The adjudicator exceeded his jurisdiction and committed a serious breach of natural justice by deciding entitlement on the basis that applicants failed to provide payment schedules under s 21 CCA — an issue not raised or argued by the parties — without giving them an opportunity to be heard on that point; he also failed to take into account relevant expert evidence, took irrelevant considerations into account, and provided inadequate reasons, thereby vitiating the adjudication and warranting quashing of the determination.
26 Nov 2014

WATTS & HUGHES CONSTRUCTION LIMITED V COMPLETE SITEWORKS COMPANY LIMITED CA444/2014 [2014] NZCA 564

Citation

(2014) 22 PRNZ 397
Court

Court of Appeal

Clause 5(b) makes late payment claims still valid but gives the payer a discretion to treat a late claim as received on the next due date; any election under cl 5(b) must be communicated to the subcontractor in order to be effective by the last day on which a payment schedule could be served; Watts & Hughes did not communicate any election by the relevant deadline (27 March 2014) and thus, by cl 5(h) and s22 of the Act, became liable to pay the claimed amount and had no arguable defence to the statutory demand.
19 Aug 2011

CHOW GROUP LIMITED V WALTON HC AK CIV-2011-404-003148

Citation

openlaw-628bd3dd_3af6_4a27_8d1b_657e4888c8b5.pdf
Court

High Court

Adjudicator erred in law and breached natural justice by denying Chow Group an opportunity to comment on Clearwater's reply submissions, but the breach did not cause prejudice warranting relief because the issues raised in the reply were legal and would not have altered the outcome; additionally, a contractor's bond was not a condition precedent to serve a payment claim and Chow Group's 13 December letter did not satisfy statutory requirements for a payment schedule, so the adjudicator's substantive decision stands and the judicial review is declined.
20 Aug 2010

HERBERT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED V MICHAEL FEATHERSTON TOOGOOD HC NAP CIV-2010-441-283

Citation

openlaw-c2a824ed_7230_4102_ab63_cefca38ccfd8.pdf
Court

High Court

The summary judgment application was dismissed because it was reasonably arguable that the claimed amounts were not 'due' under ss 22 and 23 of the Construction Contracts Act 2002: the written contract (cl 12.2.1) made final payment conditional on issuance of a practical completion certificate so no due date had been reached, and there was significant uncertainty as to the final payment terms governing the oral administration building contract and whether an earlier final claim precluded the later claim; accordingly plaintiff did not discharge the onus to show the defendant had no defence.
25 May 2006

WILLIS TRUST COMPANY LTD AND ANOR V GREEN AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2006-404-809

Citation

openlaw-a26d9b65_7ea6_4fd2_a530_caf347834b37.pdf
Court

High Court

The adjudicator had jurisdiction and his determination is upheld because Holmes' final payment claim was a progress payment under the Act, Holmes did not waive or estop its statutory rights, the engineer's 20 September certificate did not comply with s21 and therefore no valid payment schedule was provided and the statutory time for Willis (and the directors) to supply one had expired; the adjudicator's award and costs were sustainable except that the directors' liability for GST and interest on the $250,881 collateral obligation was not supported by contract and those parts of the determinat…

New Zealand Case Law

SENIO HOLDINGS LTD v EVERGREEN HOMES & CONSTRUCTION LTD [2023] NZHC 1191

ALASKA CONSTRUCTION + INTERIORS AUCKLAND LIMITED v LAHATTE & ANOR [2020] NZHC 1056

ANDERSON AND ANOR v SWINDELLS & ANOR [2018] NZHC 1803

WATTS & HUGHES CONSTRUCTION LIMITED V COMPLETE SITEWORKS COMPANY LIMITED CA444/2014 [2014] NZCA 564

CHOW GROUP LIMITED V WALTON HC AK CIV-2011-404-003148

HERBERT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED V MICHAEL FEATHERSTON TOOGOOD HC NAP CIV-2010-441-283

WILLIS TRUST COMPANY LTD AND ANOR V GREEN AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2006-404-809