- A good project management platform tracks programme, RFIs, changes, notices, and correspondence.
- Maintain a live, risk register (commercial, design, and programme) with owners and mitigation dates.
- Keep the programme current, logic‑linked, and issued regularly, flag early slippage and access constraints. Consider engaging a programming consultant if there is no programming expertise in house.
In practice, what are the most common documentation mistakes you see contractors or principals make that weaken their position in a dispute?
The most common documentation mistakes include poor record-keeping and failure to issue required notices, particularly where a written notice within a specified timeframe is a condition precedent to an entitlement. Informal directions and verbal agreements that are not confirmed in writing can also create problems, as can inconsistent cost and programme substantiation for variations and extensions of time.
The dispute-resolution landscape can be confusing. How should parties decide whether mediation, adjudication, arbitration, or court proceedings are the most appropriate pathway?During a project, start with the contract’s dispute resolution clause. Then assess urgency, subject‑matter, value, confidentiality, cost, enforceability, and relationship impact:
- Mediation: fast, confidential, and relationship‑preserving so best for negotiated outcomes
- Adjudication: quick, can be interim, but enforceable decisions. Common for payment and time issues.
- Arbitration: private, expert tribunal, final and binding, suitable for technical/high‑value disputes. But it is slower and costlier than adjudication.
- Court proceedings: public, procedural certainty, appellate routes; generally slow and expensive.
Adjudication is often used to address payment issues. What are the key strategic considerations when preparing payment claims and schedules to protect cash flow?
When preparing payment claims and schedules to protect cash flow, it is essential to comply strictly with the Construction Contracts Act 2002 and the contract. Claims and schedules should be clear, itemised, and supported by any documents relied on. Each item should be linked to relevant contract clauses, instructions, and notices. It is important to avoid global or vague claims and contra charges by particularising with enough detail. Serving and responding on time is critical, as defective or late schedules can be fatal to a party’s position.
How can parties balance protecting their legal position with maintaining momentum and relationships on site during a dispute?Parties can balance protecting their legal position with maintaining momentum and relationships on site during a dispute by following the “pay now, argue later” regime under the Construction Contracts Act 2002, which requires issuing timely and compliant payment schedules to keep cash flowing. Rigorous record-keeping and serving all required notices while continuing to perform under the contract are essential. It is important to separate payment mechanisms from performance or defect management and not to conflate these issues. Early, respectful communication and the use of “without prejudice” discussions can help preserve relationships, while formal rights are maintained in parallel. Escalation should be proportionate, and suspension or termination should be avoided unless clearly justified and compliant with contractual or statutory steps. Targeted adjudication can be considered to unlock cash flow, recognising that such decisions are interim and may be revisited in arbitration or court. Where helpful, parties can agree to escrow or holding arrangements for disputed sums and keep regular site meetings focused on project delivery.
Hazel will explore these issues further in the session Construction Law: Reforms, Avoiding Risk and Disputes on Tuesday, 24 February 2026, covering:
- Practical tools for preventing disputes: addressing common risk areas, early-warning systems and on-site documentation that stands up to disputes
- Navigating the dispute‐resolution matrix: mediation, adjudication, arbitration and civil proceedings – when to use which option and what to expect in each one
- Proven strategies for protecting cash-flow and keeping up momentum while a project is still live, including payment claims/ schedules, variations and extension-of-time issues
Hazel Bowering-Scott, Senior Associate, Wynn Williams
Hazel is a skilled commercial dispute resolution lawyer based in Queenstown, with extensive experience in construction and insurance law. She specialises in defective building disputes, material damage, and professional indemnity claims, and is highly knowledgeable about the Construction Contracts Act, the Building Act, and industry contracts like NZS 3910. In addition to her expertise in construction law, Hazel handles a broad range of general commercial disputes, including debt recovery, contract disputes, negligence claims, statutory liability, and other company-related issues. Known for her strategic approach, Hazel is a persuasive advocate who focuses on providing practical and effective dispute resolution. She employs a variety of methods, including mediation, arbitration, adjudication, and negotiated settlements, to achieve the best outcomes for her clients.
