documents are regularly appended to construction contracts. Therefore, it pays for contracting parties in New Zealand to take heed of the issues raised in the UK cases to avoid facing the same pitfalls when applying their own contracts. Lessons to be learnt The above two cases do not lay down new law or revolutionise contract interpretation. However, they serve as an important reminder that even terms buried deep in technical documentation are part of the contract and so it is essential to know and understand them. Priority clauses will not save the day when the contractual terms in question are not inconsistent. To avoid potentially substantial financial consequences, parties should undertake comprehensive due diligence on a contract to identify inconsistencies, uncertainties or potential misunderstandings, between clauses especially where technical documentation prepared by the contractor or subcontractor is appended. References: 1 Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36, per Lord Neuberger at [15]. 2 Clancy Docwra Limited v E.ON Energy Solutions Limited [2018] EWHC 3124 (TCC). 3 MT Højgaard AS v E.ON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd and another [2018] 2 All ER 22.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Sarah Sinclair
Chair and Partner - Construction and Infrastructure