A Construction Contracts Act adjudicator was within her rights cancelling an adjudication, after ruling there was no evidence that claimant MBC Lincoln was party to a now disputed flooring contract at a West Auckland supermarket. This cancellation deprived MBC Lincoln of what would otherwise have been a $111,300 win by default.
Michael Chan’s MBC Lincoln Ltd paid in full Floor Masters invoices for flooring work, now claiming $111,300 damages alleging faulty workmanship.
After a preliminary Construction Contracts Act hearing, the adjudicator said no ruling could be given.
Paperwork suggested Floor Masters entered into a contract with either Mr Chan personally, or his Lincoln Road supermarket: Tai Ping. MBC Lincoln Ltd’s name does not appear on any paperwork.
Mr Chan controls both Tai Ping and MBC Lincoln. Tai Ping supermarket is a tenant in MBC Lincoln’s building.
MBC Lincoln wants the adjudication to continue. Floor Masters had failed to file its required response to MBC’s claim within Construction Contracts Act time limits.
As a general rule, a missed deadline means sudden death; the response is ignored. The claimant wins by default.
In the High Court, MBC Lincoln asked for judicial review of the adjudicator’s decision, claiming she should first have asked for extra evidence from MBC Lincoln justifying its claim to be a party to the flooring contract, instead of simply dismissing the adjudication.
Judges are wary of judicial review applications being used to disrupt the speedier ‘pay now, argue later’ adjudication process set out in the Construction Contracts Act.
Judicial review has been allowed where adjudicators have made fundamental errors, such as: not actually reaching a decision; or ruling on something they were never asked to decide.
In this case, Justice MacGillivray said the arbitrator could have asked MBC Lincoln for further information, but she was not obliged to.
It was MBC Lincoln’s responsibility to ensure the necessary Construction Contracts Act evidence was provided upfront.
MBC Lincoln’s request for judicial review was dismissed.
Its claim for $111,300 damages now takes the long route; arbitration or litigation.
MBC Lincoln Ltd v. Floor Masters Ltd – High Court (17.08.26)
26.235