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 without giving due consideration to how they work with the main contract terms is a risky business. While often it is important for such documents (often technical) to be included in a contract, parties need to turn their minds to any potential inconsistencies, ambiguities or misunderstandings that should be addressed prior to signing the contract.

 

Common practice in the industry

It is common for contracts to include appendices containing additional documents relevant to the contract. In the construction industry, P&G Specification, Site Plans, Drawings & Specifications as well as Contract Price composition information are all commonly appended to a contract. Anything appended to the contract becomes part of the contract and therefore is legally binding on the parties.

To mitigate the risk of inconsistencies in the contract, parties will often include a ‘priority clause’ which sets out the order of precedence for the contract documents. Usually the main contractual terms take priority, with more technical documents being of lower priority. Parties rely on a priority clause to resolve any possible inconsistencies between information and terms found in different parts of a contract. The issue is that a priority clause doesn’t come into play if no inconsistency is found in the first place.

The risk of appended documents has recently been demonstrated in cases in the UK which serve as a reminder of the need for contracting parties to be careful in New Zealand.

 

What the law has to say

The principles of contract interpretation have been well laid out in cases over the years. Contractual terms are to be read in the light of the contract as a whole and its overall purpose. When interpreting a contract, the court seeks to determine the parties’ intention by reference to “what a reasonable person having all the background knowledge which would have been available to the parties would have understood them to be using the language in the contract to mean….in their documentary and factual context”.[1] On applying this legal principle, courts have shown themselves to be slow to find inconsistencies in a contract. As a result, priority clauses, while helpful in providing some ‘order’ in a contract, are rarely applied by the courts. This means that a term or condition buried in a ‘lower priority’ contract document will be given effect, so long as the meaning is not inconsistent with higher priority documents.

 

Recent UK case law

In Clancy Docwra Limited v E.ON Energy Solutions Limited[2] (CDL v E.ON), CDL was a subcontractor carrying out trenching works in Central London.  It discovered a number of underground objects requiring additional resources and work to excavate. A dispute arose as to who bore the risk of unforeseen adverse ground conditions. CDL argued that addressing adverse ground conditions was outside the scope of the subcontract works, as spelled out in the tender clarification documents appended to the subcontract. E.ON, the contractor, argued that the risk of unforeseen adverse ground conditions lay with CDL under the main conditions of the contract, which took priority in the priority of documents clause in the subcontract.

The Court sided with CDL, finding that E.ON bore the risk of unforeseen ground conditions. The priority clause didn’t even come into play as the Court found there to be no inconsistencies within the contract. Instead, the Court held that the construction work in question did not form part of the scope of subcontract work because this work had been expressly excluded in the appended documents. This meant that E.ON could not rely on the broad risk allocation clause in the main contract terms nor could it rely on the priority clause to avoid bearing the risk and cost of this additional work.

CDL v E.ON demonstrates how parties cannot rely on a priority clause to address contractual interpretation issues where there is no inconsistency found. The case highlights the importance of parties taking time to really understand what the documents being appended to the contract actually mean and how they affect the application of the main contract terms. In this case, it was evident that the post-tender clarifications put the risk of adverse ground conditions on E.ON, whether or not this is what E.ON intended its commercial position to be.

An earlier UK case, MT Højgaard AS v E.ON Climate and Renewables[3] (MT Højgaard v E.ON) is more commonly known for its discussion of fitness for purpose; however also highlights the risk of appending technical documentation to a contract without being fully aware of its contents. Again, the Court in this case found no inconsistencies within the contract documents and instead used the basic principles of contractual interpretation to determine the contract’s effect.

Here the contractor, MT Højgaard, argued that an onerous obligation requiring the foundations of an offshore windfarm be designed to ensure a lifetime of 20 years, should not be given effect because it was only found in a relatively obscure part of the tender documents and not spelled out in the prioritised contract conditions on design quality. However, the Court found that because the terms of the contract clearly included the tender documents, the parties must have intended that the onerous obligation would be given contractual effect.

The contractor also tried to argue that because the prioritised conditions of the contract imposed other obligations with respect to the quality of the design and build, the parties must not have intended that a more stringent obligation in the tender documents would be given effect. This argument was rejected as it would render meaningless the requirement that the foundations be designed to ensure a lifetime of 20 years. The contractor had therefore breached the contract and was liable for the cost of remedying the foundations.

 

Application to New Zealand

There is no analogous New Zealand case law to draw from. However, given the New Zealand courts follow the same approach to contract interpretation as the UK courts, it is highly likely that the UK cases mentioned above would apply to any analogous case heard in New Zealand. It is entirely possible that a case of this nature could arise in New Zealand, particularly in the construction context where numerous technical documents are regularly appended to construction contracts. Therefore, it pays for contracting parties in New Zealand to take heed of the issues raised in the UK cases to avoid facing the same pitfalls when applying their own contracts.

 

Lessons to be learnt

The above two cases do not lay down new law or revolutionise contract interpretation. However, they serve as an important reminder that even terms buried deep in technical documentation are part of the contract and so it is essential to know and understand them. Priority clauses will not save the day when the contractual terms in question are not inconsistent. To avoid potentially substantial financial consequences, parties should undertake comprehensive due diligence on a contract to identify inconsistencies, uncertainties or potential misunderstandings, between clauses especially where technical documentation prepared by the contractor or subcontractor is appended.

[1] Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36, per Lord Neuberger at [15].

[2] Clancy Docwra Limited v E.ON Energy Solutions Limited [2018] EWHC 3124 (TCC).

[3] MT Højgaard AS v E.ON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd and another [2018] 2 All ER 22.

 

To read this article in BuildLaw click here 

 

About the Authors

Sarah Sinclair

Chair and Partner – Construction and Infrastructure

Katie Keir

Solicitor – Construction and Infrastructure

 

 

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...