11.11.2016

FORM COUNTS UNDER THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS ACT –Auckland Electrical Solutions Ltd v The Warrington Group Ltd [2016] NZHC 2245

The Importance of form when issuing a payment claim

This case highlights the importance of form when issuing a payment claim and the effect of an inadequately formed payment claim on a summary judgement application for outstanding sums.

From July 2014 to August 2015, The Warrington Group Limited (Warrington) engaged Auckland Electrical Solutions Ltd (AES) to carry out electrical work for a construction project.  AES sent invoices totalling $83,599.57.  Payment by Warrington and credit notes in favour of Warrington left $8,659.83 outstanding.  AES claimed the invoices were payment claims and sought summary judgement in the District Court under the Construction Contacts Act 2002 (the Act) for the outstanding amount and associated costs.

The District Court declined summary judgement, citing a factual dispute and credibility issues that gave rise to an arguable defence.  In particular, there was a dispute over whether the AES invoices contained the required reference to the Act (the affidavit presented by AES annexed invoices that did reference the Act, while the affidavit presented by Warrington annexed invoices that did not) and the credibility of the witnesses (who claim that reference to the Act was or was not included in the invoices).  AES appealed the decision to the High Court.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that genuine credibility issues (which would or may go to the existence of a defence) are an impediment to summary judgement.  While a robust factual assessment on the papers is possible in summary judgement, in this instance it is not possible to make an assessment on whether the invoices contained the reference to the Act (required by s20(2)(d) of the Act) without cross-examination.

During the appeal, AES further argued that, regardless of whether the initial invoices contained the appropriate reference to the Act, the subsequent copies emailed to Warrington months later did. Therefore, AES argued that those invoices constituted fresh payment claims.

The Court ruled that, while a party may resubmit prior claims by repeating them in subsequent payments claims, whether there has been a subsequent payment claim is a question of fact.  In this instance the re-served notices contained their original dates, an unclear due date for payment (though this was not fatal), and they were served with a demand for immediate payment (implying that the time for service of a payment claim had passed).  In those circumstances, the evidence implies that the invoices were provided as copies of the payment claim rather than as a fresh payment claim.

The appeal was dismissed.  The case illustrates the importance and value of getting the form of a payment claim (and schedule) right.  Surprisingly, many contracting parties still fall short of these simple requirements, which may render their claim/schedule invalid under the Act.

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

Knowing your limits: High Court confirms liability caps in engineering consultancy agreements are consistent with Building Act duties
Design errors in a construction project can result in millions of dollars in loss.  Standard form consultancy agreements typically limit the amount that can be recovered for such errors.  The cap on...
09.07.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
glenn carstens peters npxXWgQZQ unsplash
Sender beware – how private are digital workplace conversations?
Following on from the recent Official Information Act request for correspondence between Ministry of Justice employees, employees may be wondering how private their online conversations with colleague...
04.07.2024 Posted in Employment
Concrete pillars impressive
TCC confirms Slip Rule limits in Adjudications
The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has confirmed the narrow parameters of the ‘slip rule’ in the UK, which allows adjudicators to amend their determination to correct for any clerical or ...
02.07.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
Scots rule standard notification clause was condition precedent
In a warning for contractors, a Scottish Court has ruled that a standard form notification clause was a condition precedent to recovering time-related costs (TRCs) (FES Ltd v HFD Construction Group Lt...
01.07.2024 Posted in Construction
rape blossom
Anticipatory Repudiatory Breach and the Date of Default: Ayhan Sezer v Agroinvest
The decision in Ayhan Sezer v Agroinvest [2024] EWHC 479 (Comm) clarifies that where there has been an anticipatory repudiatory breach of contract, the “date of default” is the date of the breach ...
25.06.2024 Posted in Trade and Transport
My cross-lease neighbour wants me to consent to their extension. Can I refuse?
From time to time a cross-lease property owner may be asked by their cross-lease neighbour for their consent to specific matters, such as proposed structural alterations or additions to their neighbou...
25.06.2024 Posted in Property
Contract stock edit
I have a land covenant (or an easement) registered on my title that restricts the use of my land. Can I get this removed?
Where land is subject to covenants and easements, owners might find themselves in a position where they are unintentionally or unknowingly in breach of a covenant or easement or have purchased land th...
25.06.2024 Posted in Property
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

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