New and noteworthy Construction Contracts Act case law By Shanti Frater, Jo-Anne Knight, Michael Weatherall and Deborah Rowe In this article, we review some noteworthy recent Construction Contracts Act 2002 (CCA) cases and provide key takeaways on the implications of these cases. What you need to know • A payment claim is not valid if it is not in “substantial compliance” with the requirement to include Form 1. • An adjudicator has jurisdiction to award damages under a statutory remedy. • Issue estoppel applies in respect of CCA adjudications - the same issues cannot be re-litigated in different adjudications. • The grounds of dispute in a notice of adjudication may be superseded by the adjudication claim. Poly Wealth Trustee Ltd v Van Vlerken [2020] NZHC 634 “Substantial compliance” test includes whether prescribed Form 1 has been included with payment claim In Poly Wealth Trustee Ltd, the High Court granted an application to set aside a statutory demand on the basis that the underlying payment claim was not valid due to it not being in substantial compliance with the requirements of s 20 (3) and (4) of the CCA. In particular, the payment claim was not accompanied by an adequate outline of the process for responding to the claim (as set out in the prescribed Form 1), and such failure could not be regarded as “trifling” or a mere technical quibble. This case confirms that the “substantial compliance” test, which the Court has adopted in relation to other CCA requirements for payment claims (and payment schedules), extends to the requirement to have “Form 1” accompany a payment claim. In our view best practice for contractors and subcontractors remains to ensure that their payment claims are accompanied by Form 1, exactly as prescribed by the CCA. Failure to provide Form 1 may invalidate the payment claim, depending on the extent of the departures from the prescribed form, and mean that the rights and remedies under the CCA in respect of payment claims are not available.