IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparative analysis of the operation of 'compulsory rapid adjudication' in New South Wales and New Zealand


  • Thomas Uher
  • Michael Brand


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.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Uher & Michael Brand, 2007. "A comparative analysis of the operation of 'compulsory rapid adjudication' in New South Wales and New Zealand," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(7), pages 765-775.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:25:y:2007:i:7:p:765-775
    DOI: 10.1080/01446190601047748

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:25:y:2007:i:7:p:765-775. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.