9.05.2018

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_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

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
When Actual Delay Losses Exceed Liquidated Damages
14.11.2018 Posted in Construction Law
So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, goodbye…
When the employment relationship comes to an end, for whatever reason, there are still a few boxes to be ticked. So what needs to be done before you can bid each other a (hopefully) fond farewell?
5.11.2018 Posted in Employment Law
WorkSafe v Athenberry Holdings Ltd: The Competent Contractor?
Defining health and safety duties in a contracting situation is rarely straightforward.
1.11.2018 Posted in Health & Safety Law
Managing Partner Honoured with German Award
Erich Bachmann, the Managing Partner of Auckland based commercial law firm Hesketh Henry, has been awarded the Cross of the Order of Merit with Ribbon of the Federal Republic of Germany (Verdienstkreu...
30.10.2018
Building and Construction Law Journal
Construction partner, Nick Gillies, has been published in the latest Building and Construction Law Journal ((2018) 34 BCL 179).
18.10.2018 Posted in Construction Law
EBERT CONSTRUCTION: RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION
Introduction Following our Initial Note, the receivers of Ebert Construction Ltd (Ebert) released their first report on 1 October 2018.  Then, on 3 October 2018, Ebert put itself into liquidation, wi...
Pruning Back Liability: Do Contractual Arrangements Hold the Key?
The first defended hearing under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA), WorkSafe v Athenberry Holdings Ltd, required the District Court to consider the ability of a business (a PCBU) to influe...
9.10.2018 Posted in Health & Safety 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.