20.04.2021

Contractors, Caveats, and Retention of Title clauses

The High Court in Development Construction Company Ltd v Mackenzie [2021] NZHC 546 has confirmed  that retention of title (RoT) clauses do not provide contractors with a caveatable interest.

This decision is the latest in a string of cases that provide the following general principles:

  • A RoT clause (with or without an express right of access) is not sufficient to establish a caveatable interest (Development Construction – discussed below).
  • A charging order under the Construction Contracts Act 2002 (CCA) is also insufficient to establish a caveatable interest; a CCA charging order is a separate stand-alone security (Boat Harbour Holdings Ltd v Steve Mowat Building & Construction Ltd [2012] NZCA 305).
  • A contractual right for a contractor to register a mortgage would appear to support a caveat (Topa Partners Ltd v JWL International Group Ltd [2020] NZHC 182, where the High Court ordered that Topa’s caveat should not lapse due to the existence of such a provision).

In summary, a contractor is unlikely to have a caveatable interest unless they have a contractual right to register a mortgage against the land. 

Development Construction decision

In 2019 Development Construction Company Ltd (DCL) contracted with Mr Mackenzie to carry out earth and drainage works on Mr Mackenzie’s property.  The contract included a RoT clause, albeit this did not include an express right to enter the property and remove materials that had been installed in the structures on the land.

Under a RoT clause a contractor retains title to goods they supply until payment is received.  The difficulty is that the contractor still needs to have a right to enter the property in order to remove the goods.  Some contracts address this by expressly providing this right.  However, even then, there is the further difficulty of trying to remove goods that have been incorporated into the works and have therefore become fixtures (effectively treated as being attached to the land).  As a result, a caveat may seem like an attractive option for contractors when payment issues arise. 

In this case, when Mr Mackenzie withheld payment DCL lodged a caveat over the property in reliance on the RoT clause.  DCL subsequently applied to sustain the caveat when it was challenged by Mr Mackenzie.  For the application to succeed DCL needed to show it had a beneficial or equitable interest in the land.  A personal or contractual right to payment is not sufficient. 

The Court noted that there was already legal authority that a RoT with a right to enter and remove materials was no more than a licence and did not give an interest in land.  Consequently, a RoT clause without an express right to enter – as was the situation here – also cannot logically create an interest in land meaning the Development’s caveat had to be removed.  The result is that RoT clauses, in whatever form, will it seems not support a caveat.

If you have any questions about securing payment through a property interest, please get in touch with our Construction Team or your usual contact at Hesketh Henry.

 

Disclaimer:  The information contained in this article is current at the date of publishing and is of a general nature.  It should be used as a guide only and not as a substitute for obtaining legal advice.  Specific legal advice should be sought where required.

 

 

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

Clarity on Liquidated Damages following Termination
The United Kingdom Supreme Court in Triple Point Technology Inc v PTT Public Company Ltd [2021] UKSC 29 has clarified the operation of liquidated damages clauses in the event of termination.  The dec...
Is your will in draft form?  High Court refuses to exercise its discretionary power to validate a draft will notwithstanding beneficiaries’ consent
The High Court’s recent decision in Re: An application to validate the will of Olive Ruby Piper [2021] NZHC 534 serves as a valuable reminder to make sure that your estate planning documents are...
16.09.2021 Posted in Family & Trust Wills Estates
New Fair Trading Act provisions spark need to review small trade contracts
The Fair Trading Amendment Bill received Royal Assent on 16 August 2021 and is now the Fair Trading Amendment Act 2021 (Amendment Act).  The Amendment Act amends the Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA), with...
Employment Relations Authority Finds Dismissal of Unvaccinated Border Worker to be Justified
On 1 September 2021, The Employment Relations Authority (Authority) determined in GF v New Zealand Customs Service [2021] NZERA 382, that the New Zealand Customs Service (Customs) was justified in its...
10.09.2021 Posted in Business Advice & COVID-19 & Employment
AML/CFT guidance with the High Court’s decision in Reserve Bank of New Zealand and TSB Bank Limited
On 31 August 2021, the High Court of Wellington released its decision on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand v TSB Bank Limited.
09.09.2021 Posted in AML/CFT & Banking and Finance
Supreme Court asserts Employment Relations Authority exclusive jurisdiction
The Supreme Court has recently issued a significant judgment clarifying that the Employment Relations Authority (Authority) has exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising in a “work context”. In d...
09.09.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Employment
How much does one truly deserve?
A critical analysis of the New Zealand and Australian High Courts' approach to quantum meruit claims within the construction industry
06.09.2021 Posted in Construction & Regulatory
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.
-->