By Belinda Green.

 

We’ve known for a long time that a party can’t rely on a failure to satisfy a condition if the condition failed to satisfy because of their action. But we never really had an explanation of how bad that “failure” had to be until now. In its unanimous decision of Melco Property Holdings (NZ) 2012 Limited v Hall [2022] NZSC 60, the Supreme Court has confirmed that you can’t cancel a contract for failure to satisfy a condition if your behaviour had a material effect on the failure to satisfy.

MELCO PROPERTY HOLDINGS (NZ) 2012 LIMITED V HALL

Pre-Christmas rush

Melco and Mr Hall were neighbours. Melco already occupied 1–3 Parliament Street in Lower Hutt, and wanted to buy Hall’s number 5 to expand its business premises. An offer of $1.5 million was made and accepted, conditional on due diligence. The contract was signed near the start of December 2019 and the due diligence condition was fixed for 15 working days after the agreement was signed.

Melco inspected the property in mid-December, and Hall told them that there was no seismic assessment.[1] Melco appointed a seismic engineer on 16 December, but they had availability issues and would not be able to inspect the property until the week commencing 13 January.

Around this time, Melco seems to have realised that it had made a mistake about the condition date – it had been working towards a condition date of 2 February, when in fact the condition date was 9 January. Melco sought an extension to the due diligence period on Christmas Eve. Hall responded on Boxing Day, saying an extension might be possible but that he’d check with his lawyer (who wasn’t due back into the office until 9 January). By 6 January, Melco was sufficiently concerned to have appointed another seismic engineer, who said they could do an urgent site visit if access could be arranged.

The deal unravels

On the morning of 8 January, the following texts and calls were made:

  • Hall (who was camping in the Tararua ranges) sent an early morning text to Melco saying that he could meet at midday to provide access to the new seismic engineer.
  • Later in the morning, Hall took a call from a third party who offered $1.6 million for the property.
  • At 10:22 am, Hall texted Melco saying he had to cancel the meeting “due to an unforeseen delay”.

Consequently, the seismic engineer wasn’t able to visit the property on 8 January. And the 9 January condition date was looming.

In the early hours of 9 January (6:10 am!), Melco’s lawyer emailed Hall’s lawyer to request an extension of the due diligence condition. Hall instructed his lawyer not to respond to the request and to cancel the agreement as soon as he was able to. Sometime that same morning, the first seismic engineer provided a preliminary report raising some concerns, and said an inspection was needed. Melco’s lawyer called to follow up on the requested condition date extension, but Hall’s lawyer did not call back.

At 5:03 pm, Hall’s lawyer emailed a letter to Melco’s lawyer cancelling the agreement on the basis of failure to confirm the due diligence condition.[2]

Caveat and argument

Hall signed an agreement with a third party to sell the property at a higher price, but that agreement fell over because Melco had lodged a caveat against the property.[3] Hall applied to the High Court to remove the caveat, and the matter went on to the Court of Appeal and now the Supreme Court.

To protect its caveat (and block a sale to a third party), Melco needed to prove to the Court that the agreement for sale and purchase was still in place.[4] An argument based on the “fairness” of the case was not going to be sufficient – even when a condition is for the benefit of one party only, the other party can cancel the agreement if the condition deadline comes and goes without action. And the reason for cancelling doesn’t have to be related to the condition itself: having another deal lined up or simply changing your mind can be enough. So Melco needed to find a legal basis to say that Hall’s cancellation did not take effect.

By the time the matter got to the Supreme Court, the legal argument was focused on one thing: Hall had cancelled the seismic assessment appointment with only an hour’s notice, and on the day before the condition date was due.

Conditions Precedent  

Everyone was generally willing to accept that Hall’s actions on 8 January affected Melco’s ability to satisfy or waive the 9 January due diligence condition. But the question was whether they had enough effect that it meant Hall was not legally entitled to cancel the contract.

Naturally, the parties had different views on what test the Court should apply:

  • Hall argued there was a need for a direct causal link and that Melco would have to show that Hall’s actions were a substantial cause of the failure to fulfil or waive the condition.
  • Melco argued the standard was whether Hall’s actions substantially impeded Melco from fulfilling the condition.

It was a good time to have this argument. The principle that a party cannot rely on a failure of a condition if the condition failed because of their action is a very longstanding one – the leading case is from 1919(!).[5] But it turns out that the New Zealand courts had never really been asked to articulate a specific standard of proof or causation test. So as well as considering New Zealand case law, the Supreme Court also turned to the Australian courts for assistance.

 

Has the breach contributed materially to non-fulfilment

Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided that the law should put the risk where it belongs. This meant favouring Melco’s softer approach over Hall’s stricter one. The general idea is that a defaulting party should not be able to rely on their own default. As a result, the principle was explained as follows:[6]

A party whose breach of the contract has contributed materially to non-fulfilment of the condition may not rely on such non-fulfilment to avoid a contract.

In cases where both parties have contributed to the non-fulfilment of a condition the Court thought that the breach would have to be substantial and operating.

What did this mean for Melco and Hall? Well, it’s true that Hall’s actions were not the only reason for Melco not satisfying the condition. Even if the seismic engineer had been able to get on-site on the 8th, the evidence suggested that a written report wouldn’t be available until the following week and that the engineer was not in a position to offer an oral report. So it wasn’t possible to prove that Melco would be in a good position to satisfy the due diligence clause on the 9th, given the position on the 8th.[7] But despite this, the Court still thought that there was a reasonably arguable case that Hall’s actions had had a material effect on Melco’s ability to satisfy or waive the condition. Because of that, the caveat could remain and the parties could choose to go to trial.

Want to learn more about how the parties could have made the most of their conditional contract?  Click here.

 

 

 

[1] Property owners and developers will be aware of the Earthquake Prone Buildings regime and know that, for example, a seismic assessment may be required as part of a building consent application or that the local council could identify a building as an EQPB and require seismic strengthening to be undertaken.

[2] Legal purists would want us to note that the correct term here is avoided rather than cancelled.

[3] A caveat is a “stop notice” that is registered against the title to a property. It notifies third parties of your interest in the property, and (usually) stops transfers or other transactions from being registered. A person needs to have a caveatable interest to register a caveat – so in this case it was essential that Melco establish there was still a binding agreement for sale and purchase.

[4] Because this is a caveat case, the Court only had to consider if Melco had a reasonably arguable case. This is an easier test than what will apply if/when Melco wants to get a court order requiring Hall to sell the property to it. This distinction is an important one for the parties. But it has little effect for readers who are more interested in the general statement of law from the Supreme Court.

[5] New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v Société des Ateliers et Chantiers de France [1919] AC 1.

[6] At [53].

[7] The lower courts had wanted this kind of “counterfactual analysis” (causing all those who have been involved in overseas investment applications to shudder). The Supreme Court was less keen: We also see our approach as having practical advantages in that it is realistic and avoids a counterfactual analysis which may well be speculative – at [54].

BuildLaw Issue 46

March 2022CONTENTS You break it you bought it: Supreme Court confirms you can’t cancel a contract for failure to satisfy a condition if your own behaviour had a material effect on the failure Case in Brief: Unhelpful expert witness sees homeowners succeed in defective...

Vicarious liability and subcontractors

By Sam Dorne Liability in tort depends upon proof of a personal breach of duty, with one true exception, vicarious liability. The law of negligence is generally fault based; a defendant is personally liable only for the defendant’s own negligent acts and omissions....

Limitation for payment claims under construction contracts

By Sam Dorne The decision in Hirst v Dunbar [2022] EWHC 41 (TCC) considers the impact of payment provisions in a construction contract, whether through contract or implied terms, and the commencement of the limitation period for payment claims under the contract. It...

Extensions of time in construction contracts

By Jo O’Dea   In an extension of time claim, blame for the delay was a relevant consideration when assessing what was “fair and reasonable”.   In CAJ v CAI [2021] 5 GCA 102, the Singapore Court of Appeal considered the issue of extensions of time in...

BuildLaw Issue 45

March 2022CONTENTS Extensions of time in construction contracts Construction contract procedure and dispute resolution: There really is a reason to pay attention to the boring stuff Principals beware, constructive acceleration is here UK: Important announcement on the...

Testing the waters: New South Wales Supreme Court considers the prevention principle

By Hannah Aziz  Court provides further confirmation that the prevention principle can be excluded by the terms of a contract.   Introduction Following our recent commentary comparing the operation of the prevention principle in New South Wales and Victoria, the...

Construction contract or product warranty? Not all collateral warranty disputes can be adjudicated

By Belinda Green Collateral warranties might be parasitic on a construction contract, but that doesn’t automatically mean they are one. The individual wording and circumstances need to be considered. In some cases, like in Toppan Holdings Limited v Simply Construction...

When you think the amount of your personal guarantee had a limit – but it didn’t.

In a recent Court of Appeal case, Cancian v Carters [2021] NZCA 397, Carters sought to enforce a personal guarantee against Mr Canican.  The Court dismissed an argument from Mr Cancian that Carters had not notified him that that the limit on his personal guarantee had...

BuildLaw Issue 44

December 2021CONTENTS Testing the waters: New South Wales Supreme Court considers the prevention principle Adjudication enforcement by companies in liquidation: Court of Appeal raises fundamental objections Wilful breaches of contract – Do exclusion clauses and...

Leaky Home Case: Failure to obtain a building report results in reduction of damages for contributory negligence

By Melt Strydom. Apportionment for contributory negligence allows a court to share the responsibility between parties in circumstances where the test for causation and remoteness of damage justifies it. It doesn’t mean a respondent will not be held liable for...

Do payment claims for retention money ‘fit’ with the standard terms of contract in New Zealand?

By Maria Cole The New Zealand Construction Contracts Act 2002 (CCA) does not explicitly state that payment claims can be used to recover retention money. That said, it is clear the 2015 amendments to the definition of a ‘payment’ under the CCA are broad enough to...

Resolving Construction Disputes – Is Adjudication a Good Option?

By Natalia Vila.   With few exceptions, the Construction Contracts Act 2002 (the Act) applies to every construction contract relating to construction work carried out in New Zealand. Statutory adjudication under the Act is the most commonly used dispute...

BuildLaw Issue 43

September 2021CONTENTS Construction contracts: enforcement of debts due and mandatory alternative dispute resolution clauses Cost certainty for resolving building and construction disputes: extension to the BDT Adjudication Low Value Claim scheme Engineers’ corner:...

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...

Proposed Changes to the Construction Retentions Regime

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...

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...