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

COVID-19 Redundancies: Cutting Corners Courts Censure
The Employment Relations Authority (Authority) has recently issued a determination that considers redundancies implemented due to the Government’s COVID-19 restrictions:  De Wys and Jenney v Solly...
13.08.2020 Posted in COVID-19 & Employment Law
Losses caused by 2011 earthquakes not a “series of losses”
Moore v IAG New Zealand Limited [2020] NZCA 319
12.08.2020 Posted in Insurance Law
Cancelled Plans and Future Liabilities: A post lockdown annual holidays FAQ
COVID-19 has not only hit many employers hard in terms of economic impact, it has also confronted employers with many employment challenges that require urgent attention.
04.08.2020 Posted in Business Advice & Employment Law
A high bar to set aside statutory demands to enforce adjudication determinations under the Construction Contracts Act 2002
The “pay now argue later” principle underpins the Construction Contracts Act 2002 (CCA).  The recent decision of C&R Property Development Ltd v MR Civil Ltd confirms the importance of this pr...
31.07.2020 Posted in Construction Law
Design life in the spotlight
Blackpool Borough Council v Volkerfitzpatrick [2020] EWHC 1523 (TCC) In 2009, Blackpool Borough Council (Principal), as principal, contracted with Volkerfitzpatrick Ltd (Contractor), as head contracto...
COVID-19 and the Future of Force Majeure
Not since Y2K have force majeure clauses been of so much focus.
Shareholder Agreements:  The Corporate “Pre-nup”
You’ve got a great idea for a business and you’re pumped to get to work. 
23.06.2020 Posted in Business Advice & Company Law
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.