The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1998 (the Act) applies to “construction operations”. Where a contract relates to both “construction operations” and non-construction operations, the question arises of how payment mechanisms apply to construction as opposed to non-construction operations. This case finds that a contract which is compliant with the Act will apply equally to all operations specified in the contract.

The Act

The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1998 (the Act) applies to all “construction operations”. Certain activities which are exempt from this criterion are specified at section 105, including the:

“assembly, installation or demolition of plant or machinery or erection or demolition of steelwork for the purposes of supporting or providing access to plant or machinery, on a site where the primary activity is … power generation”

Certain other engineering projects have also been made exempt, including nuclear processing and sewage treatment plants.

Generally, a very narrow approach has been taken to the exemption; only the particular activities which come under the provision have been exempt and not the whole project to which they belong. Where a single contract involves multiple activities, for instance the installation, design and fabrication of steelwork, the only activity exempt from the Act will be the installation of the steelwork.

C Spencer Limited v MW High Tech Projects UK Limited

MW High Tech Projects Limited (MW) was engaged as the main contractor for a project designing and constructing a Waste-to-Energy power plant in Hull. They appointed C Spencer Limited (CSL) as a sub-contractor to design and construct certain works. The sub-contract for the project involved both activities the Act applies to (construction operations) and activities exempt from the Act (non-construction operations). The contract was compliant with the Act.

In February 2019 CSL issued a payment application which treated payments relating to construction operations and non-construction operations as distinct elements. MW’s responding payment notice assimilated the operations and assessed the overall amount due according to one payment scheme as per the contract. CSL brought the dispute challenging the validity of MW’s payment notice, based on the claim that the notice failed to identify (a) the amount due in respect of construction operations as opposed to non-construction operations, and (b) on what basis that amount had been calculated.

CSL’s claim failed. The court held that where a contract is Act compliant and sets out one payment regime for both construction and non-construction operations, there will be no need for an applicant to specify what amount was claimed in respect of construction operations.

Although parties are bound by the Act when forming a contract insofar as it involves construction operations, this does not preclude them from forming a contract setting out one Act compliant payment scheme which applies to construction and non-construction operations. In such a case, any payment notice consistent with the terms of the contract, would be valid.

In this case, the parties had decided payment terms which could apply equally to all operations in a contract that was Act compliant. The court distinguishes on this basis the earlier case of Severfield (UK) Ltd v Duo Felguera UK Ltd (2015). In that case, the contract was not compliant with the Act. Accordingly, it was necessary to distinguish between construction operations and non-construction operation, seeing as the Act implies a compliant payment regime for construction operations but does not have the reach to do so for activities exempt from the Act. The parties then were obligated to operate separate payment regimes for the separate categories.

In a similar line of thinking, the right of adjudication which the Act sets out only applies to construction operations. Therefore, for a hybrid contract where some operations may be exempt from the Act, parties should expressly include a right to refer disputes to adjudication in their contract. This precaution prevents future complexities arising where only parts of the contract are available for adjudication.

Conclusion

A hybrid contract involving a combination of construction and non-construction operations that is not compliant with the Act risks giving rise to separate payment regimes. Therefore, parties to hybrid construction contracts are best advised to ensure their contract is Act compliant and sets out one uniform scheme for all operations. Failing to do so may result in dispute over how payment schemes should operate for those activities bound by the Act, separately from those that are exempt from the Act.

Further, it is important that parties include an express right of adjudication in construction contracts order to avoid facing parallel dispute resolution procedures.

About the Author
Sophie Hursthouse

Sophie is a law clerk at Building Disputes Tribunal. She is studying at the University of Otago.

 

Adjudication: calculating time over the Christmas period 2019-2020

What are the non-working days over the Christmas period this year?

The builder’s right to fix

Introduction When a dispute over defective building work turns ugly, the owner is sometimes tempted to refuse the builder the opportunity of returning to rectify the defects.  There are risks in this course.  This update considers a recent NSW Supreme Court decision...

BuildLaw Issue 37

October 2019 In this issue, we look at a NSW Supreme Court decision in White Constructions Pty Ltd v PBS Holdings Pty Ltd [2019] which found that the claimant, despite using an expert programmer, failed to sufficiently prove that a delay by the respondent caused delay...

The Supreme Court reinstatement is not a right that can be assigned

The Supreme Court has had the final say on the status of 'on sold' earthquake damaged properties insured by IAG at the time of the Canterbury earthquakes. In a judgment released yesterday, the Supreme Court by 3:2 majority, decided that owners of on sold properties...

Contractual appendices: ignore at your peril

Recently, a subcontractor in the UK was relieved of adverse ground conditions risk, despite contract amendments that sought to allocate that risk to the subcontractor- and it all hinged on an analysis of appendices to the contract. Appending documents to a contract...

New Government Procurement Rules Announced (4th Edition)

The 4th edition of the Government Procurement Rules (Rules) were published this month. They are the good practice standards for government procurement, and were last substantially revised in March 2015. The Rules apply to all public service departments, police,...

Building Law reforms: Raising the bar across the sector

By the Minister for Building and Construction, Jenny Salesa I’m proud of our building and construction industry, and the hard-working individuals that fill the wide and varied roles that make up the sector. It’s our fifth-largest industry by GDP and fourth-largest...

BuildLaw Issue 36

July 2019 In this issue we feature an article by the honourable Minister for Building and Construction, Jenny Salesa, with an invaluable insight on the proposed Building Law Reform Programme. In Case in Brief, Jeremy Glover makes a commentary on two recent...

BuildLaw Issue 35

April 2019 In this issue, we feature an article on the warning apartment owners may take from the recent Court of Appeal decision in Body Corporate S73368 v Otway. This decision creates some financial uncertainty for owners who could now be liable for repair costs to...

When can you go to Adjudication?

Under section 25 of the Act, any party to a construction contract is entitled to refer a dispute arising under that construction contract to adjudication except where the parties have agreed to refer disputes between them to arbitration and the arbitration is an...

Alliancing: what does the new NEC4 Alliance Contract have to offer?

By Claire King Fenwick Elliott LLPIn June 2018 the NEC published its first Alliance Contract “designed for use on major projects or programmes of work where longer-term collaborative ways of working are to be created”.[1] In this Insight we examine what is meant by...

BuildLaw Issue 34

December 2018 In this issue we investigate how the new retentions regime stacked up  in its first court case, in the Wellington High Court. We look at the new NEC4 Alliance Contract, trends in Asian leisure and hospitality, liquidated damages and receivables projects,...

Neutral Evaluation Revisited

by Royden Hindle [1] Neutral evaluation is a relatively little-used tool in the dispute resolution toolbox. Certainly, it has potential drawbacks: a party who is disappointed by an evaluator’s assessment may be slow to accept the outcome, while a party who feels...

A brief introduction to Adjudication

What is adjudication? Adjudication is a unique fast track statutory dispute resolution process or resolving building and construction disputes under the Act. It is the most commonly used dispute resolution process for resolving such disputes. Adjudication is quick and...

Initiating Adjudication: The Notice of Adjudication

Initiating Adjudication: Back to Basics   Part One: The Notice of Adjudication The preparation of the Notice of Adjudication is arguably the most important step in the Adjudication process under the Construction Contracts Act (the Act). It is that document...

Dispute Review Boards: a brief overview

Dispute Review Boards are known by many names. They are often referred to as Dispute Boards, Dispute Avoidance Boards, Dispute Adjudication Boards and Dispute Resolution Boards. Whatever their name, they have become a standard dispute...

Initiating Adjudication: Service of the Notice of Adjudication

Initiating Adjudication: Back to Basics   Part Two: Service of the Notice of Adjudication You have your Notice of Adjudication prepared, but what steps do you need to take to serve it? This note sets out in brief the requirements for service under the...

Initiating Adjudication: Appointing an Adjudicator

Initiating Adjudication: Back to Basics Part Three: Appointing an Adjudicator Following on from Part Two of our three-part series on initiating adjudication, in this note we briefly look at how to appoint an adjudicator under the Construction Contracts Act (the Act)....

BuildLaw Issue 33

November 2018 In this issue we feature delay analysis. We also look at challenging an adjudication determination in various jurisdictions, the perennial chestnut - who are the parties to the contract? force majeure clauses and causation, current problems besetting the...

BuildLaw Issue 32

June 2018 In this issue we feature 'no oral variation clauses in light of the recent UK Supreme Court decision in Rock Advertising v MWB. We also look at the Grenfell Tower Report and the suspension by MBIE of six CodeMark Certificates relating to ACPs, the...

Retentions – maxed out

Common retentions provisions in subcontracts may be unenforceable. In Maxcon Constructions Pty Ltd v Vadasz [2018] HCA 5, the High Court of Australia recently held that on its proper construction, the retention provisions in a subcontract that made...

BuildLaw Issue 31

March 2018 In this issue we feature the approach to judicial review of adjudicator's determinations taken by the courts in NSW and New Zealand. We also look at on-demand v conditional bonds, pitfalls of drafting a subsequent agreement on an underlying contract, the...

BuildLaw Issue 30

Dec 2017 In this issue we feature the Singapore Mataban case where the court confirms an adjudicator's decision to disregard an invalid payment response. We also look at the issue of non-conforming cladding that became notorious with the Grenfell Tower fire. Rebecca...

BuildLaw Issue 29

September 2017 In this issue we feature some of the challenges that are the hallmark of oral construction contracts. We also look at whether a duty of good faith applies to granting extensions of time, how final and binding is an expert determination, how not to amend...

BuildLaw Issue 28

June 2017 In this issue we feature natural justice and adjudications. We also look at representative defect claims and exclusion clauses, further amendments to the Arbitration Act, and the recent New Zealand Court of Appeals decisions in Ebert Construction v Sansom...

BuildLaw Issue 27

March 2017 In this issue we feature new changes to the Construction Contracts Act - the new statutory trust model for retentions which came into force on 31 March 2017 including the late introduction of a 'complying instrument' option as a means of protecting...

BuildLaw Issue 26

December 2016 In this issue we feature recent and imminent changes to the Construction Contracts Act - consultants included as from 1 September 2016 and a new statutory trust model for retentions comes into force on 31 March 2017. We also look at the 'Cinderella of...

BuildLaw Issue 25

September 2016 In this issue we feature "The Penalties Doctrine in International Construction Contracting: Where to from here?" - a paper delivered by Professor Doug Jones AO to the Society of Construction Law New Zealand Inc. in August of this year. We also feature a...

BuildLaw Issue 24

June 2016 In this issue we feature 'Judicial Remedies for Construction Defects: Common Law, Equity or Statute', a paper prepared by Philip Britton and delivered by Philip to the Society of Construction Law New Zealand Inc in March of this year. We also present...

BuildLaw Issue 23

March 2016 In this issue we feature construction professionals with two articles highlighting the risks associated with providing professional services and the standards society expects, and the law demands, of professionals, and a further article highlighting the...