18 August 2021 | IMPORTANT NOTICE

x

In line with Ministry of Health guidance, our staff are currently working remotely. They remain available to assist and it is business as usual. However, we ask that wherever possible you contact us online or by email to registrar@buildingdisputestribunal.co.nz.

If you need to courier documents, please contact our Registry staff in the first instance to confirm the appropriate delivery details.

He waka eke noa.

Author: Hannah Stanley, Building Disputes Tribunal Registrar

Despite the introduction of the retentions regime into the Construction Contracts Act 2002 (the Act) in 2017[1], many subcontractor retentions have still been left unprotected and various gaps in the legislation have been exposed. These shortcomings were highlighted by the high-profile insolvency of Ebert Construction and resulting litigation by its Receivers for directions on administering an inadequate retentions account[2].

In 2020, the Government announced several changes to strengthen the retentions regime in the Act. These changes have been included in a recently introduced amendment to the Act[3] which we look at below.

Current retentions regime

Retentions funds are money withheld by a party to a construction contract from an amount payable to another party. It is generally a situation between a contractor (the payer) and a subcontractor (the payee). The payer withholds a percentage of the funds payable as a form of security and to ensure the work is carried out to an appropriate standard[4] and that the obligations under the contract are met. The retentions are usually paid out once the liability period has expired which can take a number of months.

The Act states that retention money is not deemed to be held on trust, it is merely required to be held on trust[5]. Too often there are situations where the retention funds are intermingled with the construction company’s working capital (out of necessity in order for current and/or future projects to proceed). This would not be the case if a conventional trust arrangement were in place.[6] Related to this, the current scheme under the Act has no requirement that retention money be kept in separate bank accounts. Consequently, when it comes time to pay the retentions to the payee, the money may not be available, for example, the construction company may have gone into receivership after the project was started.

Despite these factors posing a huge risk to payees, there are unsatisfactory penalties in place for parties who do not comply with the trust requirements under the Act. At present it is relatively easy to get away with non-compliance and as a consequence, leave a payee short-changed.

The recent Bill

On 1 June 2021, the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill (the Bill) was introduced. The Bill proposes to strengthen the current retentions regime by recommending a number of important changes. The recommended changes largely focus on improving the protection (or lack thereof) currently afforded to payees.

Held on trust

The Bill proposes that a statutory trust would arise as soon as funds become retention money[7]. It resolves that the retention money is trust property, regardless of whether the payer has adhered to the retention regime under the Act or not[8]. Given that the retention funds would now legally be trust property, the retention money would be kept legally separate should a company become insolvent. This protects the payee significantly more than the current regime. As trust property, the retention money will be protected against being intermingled with the payer company’s working capital and the rules of common law and equity that apply to trusts will be applicable.

The trust ends when all the retention funds have been paid to the payee or when they cease to be payable for any other reason (for example, the payee may not have carried out the work to a sufficient standard). If a receiver or liquidator is appointed, they would become the trustee of the retention money and the payer would cease to be a trustee.[9] This is an important safeguard for payees.

Offences and penalties

The Bill sees harsher penalties for companies and directors who do not comply with the trust requirements, with non-compliance deemed to be an offence under the Act. A company could be fined up to $200,000 for non-compliance[10]. Furthermore, directors of non-complying companies could find themselves personally liable for a maximum fine of $50,000[11]. To further deter non-compliance, a wide definition of “director” is proposed, by including anyone who appears to act in the role of director and/or carries out a role similar to that of a director, whether or not that title is used[12]. This would pose an increased risk to all members of construction management.

Separate bank accounts and complying instruments

The Bill requires that the full amount of retentions payable to the payee are held in a New Zealand bank account or other complying instrument[13], such as an insurance policy or bank guarantee.[14] Each separate bank account cannot be used for any other purpose than to hold the retention funds, and the account name must include the words “retention money trust account”.

Record keeping

The Bill requires the keeping of proper accounting records to ensure that financial statements could be prepared.[15] Separate ledger accounts are to be kept for each payee (that is, each subcontractor) and each individual construction contract. Similar record keeping obligations would also apply to complying instruments.

Continuing disclosure and reporting obligations

The Act does not currently stipulate any express obligation to report the details and status of retention funds to the payee. This leaves the payee completely in the dark as to whether the payer has the correct amount of retention money available to pay them. The Bill seeks to remedy this by requiring that information about the retention monies is provided to the payee as soon as possible after the money is withheld and at least every three months after that.[16] This increase in transparency would be another positive gain for payees.

A positive change

Although the Bill would no doubt see an increase in the amount of administration involved in managing retention funds, the increased protection and flow of information it offers to payees represents good practice and mirrors overseas regimes. Payers would no longer be able to use retention money as working capital and intermingle retentions with other monies, as the funds would be deemed to be held on trust and would also be required to be held in separate accounts. Ultimately, payees will be provided with considerably more security when it comes to retentions and there would be far less risk of them not receiving retention money at the end of the liability period.

Next steps

The Bill has been referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. Submissions are due by 23 July 2021, with the report due by 11 November 2021. If the Bill is passed, it will come into effect six months following the royal assent and, like the original retention changes, it is proposed that most of the new provisions will only apply to construction contracts entered into after the Bill comes into force. However, the changes regarding the role of the liquidator/receiver will sensibly apply to all liquidations/receiverships, regardless of when the contract was entered into.

 

[1] The retentions regime in New Zealand is governed by sections 18A to 18I of the Construction Contracts Act 2002 which came into effect on 31 March 2017.

[2] Bennett & Ors v Ebert Construction Limited (in receivership and liquidation) [2018] NZHC 2934.

[3] Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill.

[4] Bennett at [33].

[5] Section 18C Construction Contracts Act 2002.

[6] Bennett at [71].

[7] Clause 18C(2) of the Bill.

[8] Clause 18C(4)(b) of the Bill.

[9] Clause 18J(2) of the Bill.

[10] Clause 18DA(1)(a) of the Bill.

[11] Clause 18DA(1)(b) of the Bill.

[12] Clause 18DA(3)(a) of the Bill.

[13] Clause 18D(2) of the Bill.

[14] Clause 18E of the Bill.

[15] Clause 18FC(2)(a) of the Bill.

[16] Clause 18FC(1) of the Bill.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Photo Hannah Stanley

Hannah has been part of the Building Disputes Tribunal registry for over a year. She has a  litigation background background and has practiced in both Auckland and Melbourne.

Cost certainty for resolving building and construction disputes: Extension to the BDT Adjudication Low Value Claim Scheme

By Belinda Green.   One of the main barriers to dispute resolution is cost: no one wants to risk spending more than the amount they recover. With inflation and construction costs always on the rise, BDT is extending its Low Value Claim (LVC) Scheme for...

Construction Contracts – Enforcement of Debts Due and Mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution Clauses

By Melissa Perkin. The recent High Court decision in Hellaby Resources Services Limited v Body Corporate 197281 [2021] NZHC 554 is of particular interest in the construction sector for several key reasons: it is a rare example where a stay of enforcement of summary...

The Enforceability of Liquidated Damages Clauses

Author: Melissa Perkin  Liquidated damages clauses, a common feature of construction contracts, stipulate the amount of money payable as damages for loss caused by a breach of contract, irrespective of the actual loss suffered. A recent United Kingdom decision of the...

Building and Construction Under COVID-19 Alert Level 4

For information and guidance on what building and construction work can be done at Alert Level 4: ·       Health and Safety protocols at different alert levels, visit CHASNZ COVID-19 and working at the current alert level (chasnz.org); and ·       COVID-19 guidance...

Class-action lawsuit against Harditex cladding fails

By Melissa Perkin.  A second class-action lawsuit[1] brought by a group of 144 homeowners whose homes were clad in Harditex fibre-cement cladding, has failed. The homeowners alleged that Harditex manufacturer James Hardie, between 1987 – 2005, knowingly sold defective...

What types of disputes can be referred to adjudication?

The types of dispute that can be referred to adjudication are listed below:  Default liability claim These are claims for technical non-compliance with the payment regime under the Act. Where a valid payment claim has been served by a payee on a payer and the payer...

Important Guidance on Contract Interpretation Issued by the Supreme Court

Bathurst Resources Ltd v L & M Coal Holdings Ltd [2021] NZSC 85 The Supreme Court in Bathurst Resources Ltd v L & M Coal Holdings Ltd [2021] NZSC 85 has provided important guidance on how extrinsic evidence and implied terms are used to aid interpretation of...

What are the cost implications of challenging an arbitral award through the courts?

By Maria Cole. A recent decision of the Singapore High Court shone a spotlight on indemnity costs and when they will, and won’t, be granted following the unsuccessful challenge of an arbitral award. The decision highlighted the opposite principles in place between...

Show Me the Money: Seven Things to Remember When Preparing a Payment Claim

By Amy McDonald Are you still waiting on an invoice to be paid that you sent ages ago? Have you done all the work but have nothing to show for it? Unpaid invoices can have a devastating impact on builders and subcontractors. Fortunately, the Construction Contracts Act...

BuildLaw Issue 42

June 2021CONTENTS To what extent are adjudication decisions binding on subsequent adjudicators? Aussie Rules - the prevention principle and the duty of good faith What sets jurisdiction in construction disputes? Case in Brief: BNZ Branch Properties Ltd v Wellington...

Overhaul of Resource Management System

By Belinda Green.   “Urban areas are struggling to keep pace with population growth and the need for affordable housing. Water quality is deteriorating, biodiversity is diminishing and there is an urgent need to reduce carbon emissions and adapt to climate...

Experts’ duties and conflicting interests – Secretariat Consulting Pte Ltd v A Company

By Belinda Green. Experts may look to amend their terms of engagement, as the English Court of Appeal finds a conflict of interest clause applied to a global brand, despite involving separate experts in different locations, contracting via separate legal entities....

Payment Claims: using Xero to send out your invoices? Don’t forget the important notice

By Catherine Green.   Do you use Xero to send out your invoices? Make sure they are compliant payment claims under the Construction Contracts Act 2002 (Act). The default payment regime under the Act is an efficient and effective way of getting your invoices paid....

The Award of Enforcement Costs under the Construction Contracts Act 2002

By Melissa Lin and Nashi Ali. Payees intending to recover costs from payers during the course of legal proceedings may want to reconsider issuing a statutory demand in the first instance and seek an adjudicator’s determination instead. Cubo Projects Ltd v S&S...

High-Risk Cladding Banned In Multiple Jurisdictions

By Nashi Ali. Following numerous high-rise tragedies across the globe, cladding panels constructed from aluminium composite and polyethylene have been deemed “high risk” and have subsequently been banned in a bid to reduce the risk of fire spread in high-rise...

When will (and won’t) implied warranties expand the scope of works?

By Maria Cole. The New South Wales Court of Appeal confirms statutory warranties can expand a scope of works, but the bargain that has been agreed to still holds sway. Oikos Constructions Pty Limited v Ostin [2020] NSWCA 358 (Oikos Constructions) In Oikos...

BuildLaw Issue 41

March 2021CONTENTS When will (and won't) implied warranties expand the scope of works? High risk cladding banned in multiple jurisdictions Paying the price: the risk of not agreeing to the cost of construction works at the outset of a project Case in brief:...

Construction Disputes – Are they on the rise?

A survey of construction industry members by Russell McVeagh has revealed that almost 61 percent of respondents are predicting an increase in the number of disputes. Some causes of a rise are within parties’ control, such as relationships, risk allocation and contract...

BuildLaw Issue 40

In this issue we look at the basis on which interest can be claimed in construction contract disputes and we discuss the changes announced by the government in April to stimulate the construction and infrastructure sectors post COVID-19. We feature an insightful...

Bought a house – got problems – no one wants to know?

Author: Hannah Stanley, Building Disputes Tribunal Registrar As a homeowner, discovering structural defects in your home is the last thing you want and most wonder where to go from there in terms of their rights and how to remedy the situation. The Courts are often a...

Assessing sums payable in the absence of a contract: Electrix Limited v The Fletcher Construction Company Limited [2020] NZHC 918

Authored by Michael Taylor, Joanna Trezise (Russell McVeagh), and Belinda Green (NZDRC) In a decision released on 6 May 2020, the High Court ordered The Fletcher Construction Company Limited to pay its subcontractor Electrix Limited about $7.5 million, plus GST and...

BuildLaw Issue 39

In this issue we look at the government guidelines for NZS3910:2013 contracts affected by Covid-19 Alert level 4 restrictions. We discuss adjudication injunctions caused by the virus and how they may help to provide some clarity to a rather cloudy area of law. We look...

BuildLaw Issue 38

December 2019 In this issue we look at a dispute over a home renovation contract that travelled all the way to the South Australian Supreme Court, highlighting the risks of not dealing with disputes promptly. We examine the ‘Emerald Book’ released earlier this year by...

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...

The ‘collaborative’ future of construction and infrastructure procurement

Framework Contracting, that is well planned from the outset, can be an effective tool to deliver an entire programme of infrastructure with benefits for all sides. While it is simply one way to address resource constraints and the need for fair apportionment of risk...

Case In-Brief: Hybrid contracts and the payment provisions of the Construction Act

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...

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...