![Sample our Engineering & Technology journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5933/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Engineering-Tech.jpg"})
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.