Fletcher Construction Company Limited v Spotless Facility Services (NZ) Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2020-404-572

[2020] NZHC 780

BETWEEN
THE FLETCHER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED

Applicant

AND

SPOTLESS FACILITY SERVICES (NZ) LIMITED

Respondent

Hearing: 17 April 2020

Appearances:

A M Callinan for Applicant

S C Price, J K Stewart and R A Donald for Respondent

Judgment:

21 April 2020

RESULTS JUDGMENT OF PETERS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Peters on 21 April 2020 at 4 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: ...................................

Solicitors: Simpson Grierson, Auckland
MinterEllisonRuddWatts, Auckland

THE FLETCHER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD v SPOTLESS FACILITY SERVICES (NZ) LTD [2020] NZHC 780 [21 April 2020]

[1] On 17 April 2020, I heard the applicant’s (“FCC”) application for interim relief of 16 April 2020 (“application”), on a Pickwick basis. The respondent (“Spotless”) was heard, but on very short notice.

[2]This is a results judgment. My reasons will follow shortly.

[3] Pending further order of the Court, pursuant to s 24A(2)(e) Construction Contracts Act 2002, I order Spotless to lift its suspension on notification to Spotless that FCC has deposited the amount of payment claim 44 ($2,067,715.86 excluding GST) with a stakeholder, to be held on interest bearing deposit, and to be disbursed in accordance with further order of the Court.1

[4]I reserve leave to apply.

Peters J

1 Counsel advise me Bell Gully is the agreed stakeholder.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, was presented with an application for interim relief by Fletcher Construction Company Limited (FCC) against Spotless Facility Services (NZ) Limited. The case, which was heard on 17 April 2020, involved an application by FCC dated 16 April 2020. The application was heard on a Pickwick basis, meaning it was considered on the basis of the evidence and arguments presented without the usual requirement for full disclosure of all evidence. Spotless Facility Services (NZ) Limited was given very short notice to respond to the application.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether FCC was entitled to interim relief under section 24A(2)(e) of the Construction Contracts Act 2002. Specifically, FCC sought an order that Spotless lift its suspension of work on a construction project due to a dispute over payment. The court had to determine whether the conditions for such relief were met, particularly focusing on the requirement that FCC deposit the disputed amount with a stakeholder and the implications of doing so for the rights of both parties under the Construction Contracts Act.

Justice Peters, in delivering the judgment on 21 April 2020, found that the conditions for interim relief were met. The court ordered Spotless to lift its suspension pending FCC's deposit of the disputed amount with a stakeholder. This decision was made in accordance with section 24A(2)(e) of the Construction Contracts Act 2002. The court reserved the right to further apply if necessary, indicating that the decision was provisional pending further orders. The amount in dispute, $2,067,715.86 excluding GST, was to be held on an interest-bearing deposit and disbursed as further ordered by the court. Bell Gully was identified as the agreed stakeholder for the deposit.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established