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

Flooded car
Flooding due to overland flow paths and damaged drainage
Persistent heavy rainfall across the country often results in damage to property due to flooding caused by overland flow paths and defective drainage.  But who is responsible for the cost of the dama...
17.06.2025 Posted in Climate Change & Property
Understanding Indirect Privacy Notification: What you need to know
The Privacy Amendment Bill (the Bill), if passed into law, will require agencies to notify individuals when their personal information is collected from a source other than the individual themselves, ...
16.06.2025 Posted in Corporate & Commercial & Employment
iStock  Succession Plan medium
Family Ties: Intra-Family Succession and Exit Planning
As the second instalment in a series of articles looking at the generational wealth transition and its impacts on business succession in New Zealand, Ben Hickson (partner, Corporate & Commercial...
16.06.2025 Posted in Corporate & Commercial & Private Wealth
Employment law at a glance – June 2025
If you are anything like us, you will be shocked to realise that we are halfway into 2025. As time has been marching on, so too have employment law developments – and there have certainly been quite...
05.06.2025 Posted in Employment
HH Pg  Forrest uncropped
ETS Update: Climate Change Commission recommends minor tweaks to ETS Settings
Last month, He Pou a Rangi Climate Change Commission (the Commission) released its annual advice to the Government on the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) settings for the period 2026 to 2030 (Advice)....
HS Scrabble Med Crop Vignette
Health and safety learnings for landowners following latest Whakaari decision
The leasing and subleasing of land, buildings and infrastructure is commonplace in New Zealand business and commerce, but what happens when something goes wrong? Do landowners have health and safety o...
08.05.2025 Posted in Health & Safety
Navigating Settlor Intentions in Trust Restructures – Legler v Formannoij [2024] NZSC 173
In Legler v Formannoij the surviving widow Marina Formannoij, was forced to navigate the complexities of two trusts that were part of her late husband Ricco Legler’s estate plan: the Kaahu Trust (wh...
08.05.2025 Posted in Private Wealth
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

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