Abstract:
Section 79 of the Construction Contracts Act 2002(CCA) prohibits the courts from giving effect to any cross claim in CCA debt recovery proceedings. High Court decisions differ on whether liquidation or bankruptcy proceedings based on a CCA debt are CCA debt recovery proceedings referred to in s 79 and hence attract the prohibition. The article as N01, inter alia, argues that they are not. In Laywood v Holmes Construction Wellington Ltd [2009] 2 NZLR 243, the Court of Appeal rejects my argument. This article (N02), unsurprisingly, criticises the decision and reinforces the argument. The article points out the uncertainties and injustice in the meanings and implications of the decision, and argues that, both as a matter of statutory interpretation and as a matter of policy considerations, the decision does not represent what the law should be and is not good law. I wrote this article not in the slightest because of ego, but simply because I hope that the decision can be overruled sooner or later.
