11.05.2020

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_100x100 1
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

Bereavement Leave Confirmed for Miscarriages and Stillbirths 
New Zealand has become the second country in the world to pass legislation that provides bereavement leave for mothers and their partners after a miscarriage or stillbirth.
26.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Employment Law
Court of Appeal Overturns Employment Court’s Decision in Tourism Holdings
Tourism Holdings Limited v A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Tourism Holdings) is the first decision in which the Employment Court considered section 8(2) of the Holidays Act 2003 (Act). The Court of Appeal has recently overturned this decision.
26.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Employment Law
Guarantees must be in writing and signed to be enforceable
For a guarantee to be enforceable, the requirements set out in section 27 of the Property Law Act 2007 (Act) must be strictly complied with.  This is what the NZSC held in Brougham v Regan. The key i...
19.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice
UK Supreme Court Delivers Decision on Uber Driver Employment Status
The distinction between employee and independent contractor can be complex, particularly where the nature of the business model blurs the lines of standard employment practices.
16.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Employment Law
Holidays Act Overhaul – Taskforce Recommendations
There have been calls for an amendment of the Holidays Act 2003 (Act) for some time.
16.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Employment Law
Unwanted Land Covenants and Easements: Seeking a Court Order
The Supreme Court recently considered an application by Synlait Milk to modify a land covenant restricting the burdened land use to farming, grazing and forestry operation to protect the ability of the benefited land owner to develop a quarry.  This article looks at the circumstances in which the courts might give relief to parties in an application to extinguish or modify a covenant or easement.
15.03.2021 Posted in Property Law
New ICC Arbitration Rules 2021 come into force
The revised International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Arbitration Rules for 2021 (2021 Rules) have now come into force and apply to all ICC arbitrations begun after 1 January 2021.  While the new Rules...
10.03.2021 Posted in Litigation & Dispute Resolution
Send us an enquiry
For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
-->