25.10.2016

Clarification of retentions requirements for construction contracts

The retentions regime comes into force on 31 March 2017

A bill has been introduced to Parliament to make clear that the new retentions regime for construction contracts only applies to contracts which have been entered into, or renewed, on or after 31 March 2017.  Once the regime comes into force, parties may agree that it applies to earlier contracts.  The Regulatory Systems (Commercial Matters) Amendment Bill had its first reading on 18 October 2016.

The retentions regime comes into force on 31 March 2017.  Principals and head contractors will be required to hold retention money on trust as cash or liquid assets that are readily converted into cash.  The money does not need to be kept in a separate trust account, and can be commingled with other moneys.  Retentions may only be used to remedy defects in the contract works, cannot be used for working capital, and must be paid no later than the date upon which the contractor’s obligations have been completed.  The mechanics of the regime will be clarified in regulations, which have yet to be released.

For more information, or to discuss any aspect of construction law, please contact:

Nick Gilliesnick.gillies@heskethhenry.co.nz or +64 9 375 8767

Christina Bryant –     christina.bryant@heskethhenry.co.nz or +64 9 375 8789

Helen Macfarlanehelen.macfarlane@heskethhenry.co.nz or +64 9 375 8711

Sarah Holdernesssarah.holderness@heskethhenry.co.nz or +64 9 375 8778

Disclaimer:  The information contained here is of a general nature and should be used as a guide only.  It is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice.  Any reference to law and legislation is to New Zealand law and legislation.

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

Are trustees bound to relationship property agreements?
In Rawson v Prescott [2024] NZHC 1919, the High Court addressed a dispute involving trust property and a relationship property agreement. Mr RR, trustee of the GR Family Trust, sought summary judgment...
10.09.2024 Posted in Private Wealth
shutterstock
Bowen case part 1 – blowing the whistle
You may have heard of the term ‘whistleblowing’, but have you heard of ‘protected disclosures’? Protected disclosures are a creature of the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers)...
10.09.2024 Posted in Employment
Construction theme black and white
Contractors take note – are any of your retentions clauses prohibited provisions?
In Stevensons Structural Engineers 1978 Ltd (in liq) v McMillan & Lockwood (PN) Ltd & Anor [2024] NZHC 2415, the High Court held that the timing for payment out of retentions in certain subcon...
05.09.2024 Posted in Construction
Avoiding the Grey Area: Interpreting Trust Beneficiary Classes
Beneficiary classes in trust deeds should be clearly defined to ensure the assets of the trust benefit the people who the settlor(s) of the trust originally intended.   If they are not, then disputes...
05.09.2024 Posted in Private Wealth
vecteezy square wooden blocks lined up on a wooden workbench  Insurance Icons centered
Hesketh Henry’s Insurance Team author LexisNexis Practical Guidance Insurance
Hesketh Henry’s Insurance Team is delighted to celebrate the launch of Practical Guidance Insurance. LexisNexis has launched Practical Guidance Insurance containing 12 topics and over 50 sub-topics ...
03.09.2024 Posted in Insurance
Contract dictionary
Is ‘close enough’ OK? Reasonable endeavours to overcome a force majeure event
The English Supreme Court’s decision in RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV [2024] UKSC 18 has demonstrated the effect sanctions may have on a contract as a force majeure event and clarified the parameters of...
03.09.2024 Posted in Trade and Transport
The useful Mackay v Dick principle is part of English law – might it apply here?
The useful Mackay v Dick principle is part of English law – might it apply here? In King Crude Carriers S.A. & Ors v Ridgebury November LLC & Ors, the English and Wales Court of Appeal confi...
03.09.2024 Posted in Trade and Transport
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

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