BuildLaw Issue 29 September 2017 | Page 6

BuildLaw: In Brief

MBIE publishes Practice Note for supervision by LBPs







MBIE has published a licensed building practitioner (LBP) Supervision Practice Note outlining what LBPs need to know about supervising unlicensed people.
Supervision in the building and construction sector has become increasingly important as the amount of building work across New Zealand has increased. Supervision is a key feature of the LBP scheme where LBPs oversee unlicensed people undertaking restricted building work in different contexts.
The Practice Note provides practical guidelines for LBPs working with builders with varying skill levels, as well as varying difficulty levels of work. It also outlines the value and importance of LBPs’ responsibility when it comes to supervision. It’s important that all LBPs read and understand the Supervision Practice Note.
Practice Notes are administered by regulators and set out expectations for licensed people on key subject matters.
If you have any questions about the Practice Note, please feel free to contact the LBP team at [email protected]
LBP Practice Note – Supervision is available on MBIE’s LBP website.


Single payment schedule can respond to more than one payment claim
In a recent decision in Lot 8 Investments Limited v RPS Construction Limited [2017] NZHC 1400, the High Court has adopted a flexible approach to the payment claim/payment schedule regime under the Construction Contracts Act 2002 (Act) and what will be regarded as a complying document.
Lot 8 Investments Ltd (Lot 8) contracted with RPS Construction Ltd (RPS), to undertake certain building work. RPS issued two separate payment claims to Lot 8 for work done during different periods. Lot 8 disputed both payment claims in a single payment schedule. RPS argued that Lot 8 failed to comply with the payment regime under the CCA and made a statutory demand for the claimed amounts.






The question for the Court was whether Lot 8’s approach in providing only a single payment schedule in response to more than one payment claim came within the requirements of the Act. Ultimately, the Court held that it could. However, the other requirements must be complied with.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court considered the case of Loveridge Ltd v Watts & Hughes Construction Ltd which emphasised the reference in the Act to “the” payment claim in the singular. However, the Court was satisfied that Loveridge concerned the question of payment claims rather than payment schedules and distinguished it on that basis.