11.02.2020

Adjudication: Conflicts of Interest with Professional Advisors

The last working day of 2019 saw another judicial review of an adjudication determination (Yousseff v Maiden [2019] NZHC 3471), this time focused on conflict of interest and apparent bias.  Despite judicial review being generally discouraged and relatively rare, there has been something of a run lately, and in this case the adjudicator’s determination was quashed. 

The Jamessef Trust (the Principal and applicant) contracted Bespoke Design and Build Ltd (the Builder and respondent) to construct a house in Mangawhai.  In 2018 the Builder suspended work for alleged non-payment.  This resulted in the Principal cancelling on the basis of a fundamental breach by the Builder, who responded rejecting this and cancelling the contract itself.  

So, with daggers drawn, the parties brought Construction Contract Act (CCA) adjudications against one another for amounts said to arise from the building contract cancellation.

The same adjudicator was nominated and accepted for both adjudication proceedings, which were consolidated and heard together.  The adjudicator concluded that the Principal’s cancellation was unlawful meaning the Builder’s cancellation prevailed, and, after netting off amounts due each way, the Principal was to pay the Builder $125,685 (including lost profit and GST).

Rather than have the dispute heard afresh, the Principal instead sought judicial review of the determination.  Despite raising multiple arguments, their main contentions were that the adjudicator had failed to disclose a conflict of interest and had apparent bias. 

The CCA requires an adjudicator to disclose “any conflict of interest” (sections 35 and 41).  In this case the adjudicator had been/was engaged as an expert witness in separate proceedings of another client of the Builder’s law firm.  The Court concluded that this relationship with the firm was sufficient to create a conflict of interest, particularly as the adjudicator had been engaged on that firm’s recommendation, meaning his appointment and fees on those matters had derived from his relationship with them.  The relationship also implicitly presented potential future work opportunities. 

For similar reasons, the Court also concluded that the adjudicator was disqualified for apparent bias (albeit there was no evidence of actual bias).  In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that a “fair minded observer might reasonably apprehend that [given his professional relationship with the law firm, the adjudicator] might not bring an impartial mind” to the dispute. 

Relationships between law firms and industry experts are commonplace.  In close-knit New Zealand, Youssef might come as a surprise to some.  It essentially confirms that adjudicators are unable to accept CCA appointments where they are working with one of the parties’ legal advisors in parallel (or near parallel) on other matters.  It also highlights that adjudicators must be alive generally to any commercial relationship they may have with a party’s advisors, possibly even ones that are not presently active.  As always, judging this will be a matter of fact and degree in each case.

 

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

iStock  Construction dpi
Call me? Care is required when calling on a bond
In the recent High Court decision Hawkins Ltd v Elizabeth Properties Ltd, Hawkins was successful in preventing EPL from calling on a $3m bond pending determination of a dispute principally over the ap...
10.04.2024
HH News NZS  Release
What You Need to Know About the New NZS3910:2023
The new NZS3910:2023 (conditions of contract for building and civil engineering construction) was released by Standards New Zealand in December 2024 (see our article here).  It is now gaining relevan...
10.04.2024 Posted in Construction
Money stack black and white
Income is classified as relationship property – surprised?
For all couples, embarking on the journey of building a life together involves not only love and commitment but also financial considerations.  As you navigate through shared finances, it’s imp...
26.03.2024 Posted in Private Wealth
Forestry Unsplash ruben hanssen wl ylTCM
Forestry: Regulatory Roundup March 2024
The challenging economic environment for New Zealand’s forestry industry continues, with China’s demand for our logs remaining subdued. Moreover, in addition to the change in Government, t...
25.03.2024 Posted in Forestry & Property
solar
OIO Spotlight: Solar projects, exempted interests and farmland considerations
As New Zealand renewable energy developments continue to attract interest from global investors, we take a look at some recent approaches of the Overseas Investment Office in assessing consent require...
BCC Trade Credit v Thera Agri Capital: Policyholder Successful Against Credit Insurer in Australian Court of Appeal Decision
When applying for trade credit insurance, a prospective insured will typically provide information on the financing arrangements that will form the basis of cover. Where there is deviation from these ...
05.03.2024 Posted in Insurance & Trade and Transport
iStock
Parker v Magnum Hire: A new era of personal grievance remedies awarded in the Employment Relations Authority?
If you heard a sudden loud noise last week – no it wasn’t a jet plane flying overhead, it was the gasp of employment lawyers across New Zealand when the Employment Relations Authority published it...
26.02.2024 Posted in Employment
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.