Although parties are bound by the Act when forming a contract insofar as it involves construction operations, this does not preclude them from forming a contract setting out one Act compliant payment scheme which applies to construction and non-construction operations. In such a case, any payment notice consistent with the terms of the contract, would be valid. In this case, the parties had decided payment terms which could apply equally to all operations in a contract that was Act compliant. The court distinguishes on this basis the earlier case of Severfield (UK) Ltd v Duo Felguera UK Ltd (2015). In that case, the contract was not compliant with the Act. Accordingly, it was necessary to distinguish between construction operations and non-construction operation, seeing as the Act implies a compliant payment regime for construction operations but does not have the reach to do so for activities exempt from the Act. The parties then were obligated to operate separate payment regimes for the separate categories. In a similar line of thinking, the right of adjudication which the Act sets out only applies to construction operations. Therefore, for a hybrid contract where some operations may be exempt from the Act, parties should expressly include a right to refer disputes to adjudication in their contract. This precaution prevents future complexities arising where only parts of the contract are available for adjudication. Conclusion A hybrid contract involving a combination of construction and non-construction operations that is not compliant with the Act risks giving rise to separate payment regimes. Therefore, parties to hybrid construction contracts are best advised to ensure their contract is Act compliant and sets out one uniform scheme for all operations. Failing to do so may result in dispute over how payment schemes should operate for those activities bound by the Act, separately from those that are exempt from the Act. Further, it is important that parties include an express right of adjudication in construction contracts order to avoid facing parallel dispute resolution procedures. about the author sophie hursthouse sophie is a law clerk at building disputes tribunal. she is studying at the university of otago