Uher, T and Brand, M (2007) A comparative analysis of the operation of 'compulsory rapid adjudication' in New South Wales and New Zealand. Construction Management and Economics, 25(7), pp. 765-775. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to make a comparative analysis of the operation of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (the NSW Act) and the Construction Contracts Act 2002 (NZ) (the NZ Act). Data were extracted from the NSW and NZ Acts, the NSW Department of Commerce and from the published books, reports and articles. Under the NSW Act, which is only concerned with payment claim disputes, adjudicators' jurisdiction is narrow and timelines for the submission of documents and for making an adjudication determination are short. Consequently, payment claim disputes are resolved rapidly and economically. The NZ Act on the other hand addresses all kinds of disputes. The jurisdiction of adjudicators is broad and the period for making an adjudication determination is about twice as long as in NSW. One of the strengths of the NSW Act is the ability to enter judgment for an adjudicated amount by simply filing an adjudication certificate in a court. One of the strengths of the NZ Act is in allowing the claimant to join the owner of a construction site in an adjudication; the adjudicator has a power to determine that the owner, who is an associate of the respondent, is jointly and severally liable with the respondent for the debt, and can approve of a charging order over the construction site owned by the owner.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Australia; construction claims; New Zealand; statutory adjudication |
| Index terms: | adjudicator, commerce, construction contract, security of payment, construction industry, statutory adjudication, adjudication, judgment, New Zealand, dispute, owner, Australia, New South Wales, documents, construction claim, construction site, jurisdiction, comparative analysis |
| Subjects: | asset management, sociology, payment, industry analysis, professional development, warranties, Geography, work location, data analysis and analytics, legal systems, contract type, dispute resolution, practitioner |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Site Management, Contract Administration, Business Strategy, Information Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here