BuildLaw Issue 39 April 2020 | Page 13

client resulting from the breach, that was reasonably foreseeable, as liable to result from that breach.

As a result of Haskell, an adjudicator clearly has jurisdiction to make enforceable determinations both as to:

• Whether or not parties to the adjudication are liable to make payment under a contract

• Whether or not parties to the adjudication should be awarded damages for breach of contract or any other statutory obligation.

Although it did seem obvious that the 2015 amendments were intended to make it clear an adjudicator had the power to award damages for breach of contract, Haskell is a welcome clarification of these issues.

12

www.buildingdisputestribunal.co.nz

1 Haskell Construction Limited v Robert Francis Ashcroft HC Wellington CIV-2019-485-593, 21 April 2020.

2 Section 3(1)(c) of the Act.

3 See section 48(1)(a) and (b) of the Act.

4 See section 58 of the Act as originally enacted. This section was amended by the Construction Contracts Amendment Act 2015.

5 M Van Der Wal Builders & Contractors Limited v Walker [2011] CIV 2011-004-000083 [2011] NZHC 1052 at [98]-[99].

6 Clark v Central Lakes Homes Ltd [2016] HC Christchurch CIV-2016-425-25 NZHC 1694 at [34].

7 Construction Contracts Amendment Bill 2015 (97–2) (select committee report) at 4.

8 See section 25(2)(b) of the Act.

9 Section 19, definition of “payment”.

10 See, for example, Andrew Skelton “Construction adjudication case law: some interesting issues” (paper presented to AMINZ, November 2018-Feburary 2019).

11 Andrew Skelton “Construction adjudication case law: some interesting issues” (paper presented to AMINZ, November 2018-Feburary 2019 at 14.

12 Skelton, at 15.

13 Haskell, at [14].

14 At [60].

End Notes

about the author

Laura is a law clerk at Building Disputes Tribunal. She is studying at Victoria University of Wellington

Laura Bawden-Hindle

BuildLaw | Apr 2020