6.09.2021

Unprecedented ! NZS3910, Risk Allocation and COVID-19

The first Level 4 lockdown of 25 March 2020, implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, exposed various flaws in the risk allocation regime under standard construction contract NZS3910.   

In light of the upcoming review of NZS3910, this essay analysed how it handles risk.  It considered how the government’s guidelines for the public sector construction industry on handling variations during the Level 4 lockdown, affected risk allocation under NZS3910.  And it considered whether the upcoming review should recommend changes to risk allocation under NZS3910. 

Ultimately, this essay made several recommendations:

  • A force majeure clause should be inserted to cover pandemics, and legislation / regulation passed in response to pandemics. 
  • A schedule or risk register should be included to list all risks covered under the contract, to help contractors accurately price risks. 
  • NZS3910’s theory of risk allocation should be changed from a fault-based regime to one which allocates risk to the party best placed to bear it. 
  • Greater use should be made of alternate tendering practices, like those used in Norway, which encourage principals to choose the middle of three tenders, ranked by price, as these enable tenderers to properly price risk.

Lydia’s essay won first prize in the New Zealand Society of Construction Law Essay Prize 2021.  To read Lydia’s essay please click here.

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

The Impact of Unclear Communication
The recent decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Valmont Interiors Pty Ltd v Giorgio Armani Australia Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2021] NSWCA 9 is an example of an unclear direction resulting in a principal being unable to rely on a notification time bar in a construction contract.
11.10.2021 Posted in Construction
Penalties imposed for a single phone call attempting to enter a price-fixing agreement
The High Court in Commerce Commission v Specialised Container Services (Christchurch) Ltd recently imposed pecuniary penalties under the Commerce Act 1986 (the Act) for an attempt to enter into a pric...
07.10.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Regulatory
Update – August/September 2021 Lockdown – what financial support is available?
The Government is offering various support schemes to help employees and businesses cope with the 2021 COVID-19 Lockdown.  Given the differing eligibility requirements it is easy to become overwhelmed.
07.10.2021 Posted in Business Advice & COVID-19 & Employment
Exclusion of liability for deliberate breaches of contract 
In Mott Macdonald Ltd v Trant Engineering Ltd [2021] EWHC 754 (TCC) the English High Court considered a summary judgment application on the applicability of a limitation of liability clause to an alle...
How low can you go?  Commerce Commission’s prosecution against Bunnings dismissed
The District Court recently dismissed the Commerce Commission’s case against Bunnings for alleged misleading and deceptive representations under the Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA). In dismissing the Co...
Civil Aviation Bill introduced to Parliament
After five years of preparation, the Civil Aviation Bill has been introduced to Parliament.  The aviation industry has seen dramatic change in the three decades since the current Civil Aviation Act w...
30.09.2021 Posted in Aviation
Regulators do not “bend” on AML/CFT compliance: Financial Markets Authority v CLSA Premium Limited
Earlier this month, the High Court released its decision in Financial Markets Authority v CLSA Premium New Zealand Limited.
23.09.2021 Posted in AML/CFT & Business Advice & 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.
-->