Alaska Construction and Interiors Auckland Ltd v Lahatte [2020] NZH1056 Grounds of dispute in a notice of adjudication may be superseded by the adjudication claim In Alaska Construction and Interiors Auckland Ltd v Lahatte, the Court held that the grounds of dispute in a notice of adjudication may be superseded by the adjudication claim. In this case a "default" payment claim was sought in the adjudication claim but had not been raised in the notice of adjudication. In fact, the date for issue of the payment schedule had not even expired at the date of the notice of adjudication. Woolford J referred to s 36(2)(a) of the CCA which contains the words “to the extent that it remains relevant” as an indication that the dispute set out in the notice of adjudication may be superseded by the adjudication claim. He also noted that section 45(c) of the CCA does not require the adjudicator to consider the notice. It has been widely accepted in the industry that the notice of adjudication sets the bounds of an adjudication, and a claimant is confined to the dispute as framed in the notice of adjudication. That view may not be correct in light of Alaska. In Alaska, the remedy sought in the notice of adjudication (payment of a specified sum of money) broadly matched the remedy sought in the adjudication claim, albeit that the legal grounds for the claim changed to add the “default” claim which arose in the period after issue of the notice. It is not clear whether the Court’s reasoning would apply if the remedy sought in the adjudication claim was entirely different to that sought in the notice. In our view it would still be prudent for a claimant to “match” the adjudication claim to the notice of adjudication, to avoid jurisdictional arguments like those that arose in Alaska. In practice, this means being largely prepared with the adjudication claim before issuing the notice of adjudication. This is often prudent in any event to ensure a claimant is sufficiently prepared for the adjudication before issuing the notice.