Parliament passes sweeping amendments to construction payment regime

Parliament has recently enacted legislation allowing for comprehensive changes to the Construction Contracts Act 2002. The Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Act 2023 passed its third reading on Wednesday 29 March and received Royal assent on April 5.The legislation concerns the use and protection of retention money held by head contractors. It intends to strengthen current requirements for the purpose of giving subcontractors added security.
Author(s): Alexander Lyall
A man wearing a hard hat, safety goggles, and a plaid shirt is holding a notebook with sketches. He stands in a partially renovated room with plastic covering the window. A ladder and various construction tools are visible in the background.

Current requirements

The Construction Contracts Act 2002 (the CCA) currently requires that when a head contractor (referred to in the CCA as party A) holds retention money for a subcontractor (referred to in the CCA as party B), it must be done in a trust with the subcontractor as the beneficiary. The sum may be held in cash, liquid assets, or a financial instrument. 

Close-up of a rolled U.S. five-dollar bill with a portrait of Abraham Lincoln visible. A red rubber band is wrapped around the bill, securing it tightly. The background is blurred, drawing focus to the intricate details of Lincoln's face on the bill.


Clarification on what is retention money 

Sums of money will be deemed to be retention money regardless of whether they have actually been retained, or whether a portion of the sum has already been paid to the subcontractor. The effect of this change will be seen in situations where the head contractor becomes insolvent. A subcontractor who has been partially paid should no longer be in a better position than one who has not. 

Retention money held in trust 

The Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Act 2023 (the Act) clarifies that retention money is automatically held on trust by the head contractor. This removes the necessity for an explicit intention to be made that the retention money will be stored in the trust. 

Once the retention money is paid to the subcontractor, it will no longer be trust property. This may also occur when the funds are used by the head contractor to rectify errors. 

Holding retention money

A person is using a calculator app on a smartphone, showing the number 1089. Nearby, there are stacks of U.S. dollar bills and a notepad with a handwritten note that reads "Taxes: 60, Loan: 820." The scene is set on a white surface.

The head contractor is to hold retention money in either a bank account or make it the subject of a suitable financial instrument, such as insurance or a payment bond. 

The requirements for such maintenance will be set once the retention money is held in the bank account. In this event: 

  • the account must be used only for the purpose of holding the retention money; and 
  • the head contractor must inform the bank that the account is a trust account for the purposes of holding retention money. 

Status of retention money to be reported 

The head contractor will be mandated to give the subcontractor specified information at the time the sum is held. From that point, the relevant information should be given to the subcontractor every third month, at least. To be included in that information are: 

  • the latest amount withheld, the particular construction contract to which that pertains, its date of retention; and 
  • the total amount of retention money that the head contractor holds for the subcontractor. 

In these situations, it is necessary for the head contractor to communicate this information: 

  • if a bank has been selected, the head contractor will then need to communicate the name of that bank, as well as the respective branch and name of the bank account; 
  • if the account in which the sum is stored has a separate ledger, the name of the subcontractor’s ledger and the total balance held for the subcontractor; and 
  • if the head contractor is using a financial instrument, the name of the issuer, information relevant for identifying the instrument, and the amount protected. 

A penalty will apply if the information given is either false or misleading. 

Liquidation or receivership 

If the head contractor is placed into either liquidation or receivership, the liquidator or receiver will use a trust to hold the retention money. The responsibilities held by the head contractor are then transferred to the liquidator or receiver. The Act seeks to change the current situation for liquidators and receivers where they must make an application to the court for directions. It does so by clarifying that liquidators and receivers will not be liable for any improper or unlawful action taken prior to their appointment. 


One of the biggest changes to the CCA is that it now includes penalty provisions for noncompliance. These penalties are: 

  • a fine of up to $200,000 for failure to keep retention money in a way described by the CCA; 
  • a fine of up to $50,000 for failure to keep proper accounting; and 
  • a fine of up to $50,000 for failure to provide regular reports of retention money. 

Each director can also be personally liable for failure to properly hold retention money if the head contractor is a company. A director in this situation could find themselves with a fine of up to $50,000. Of note, this penalty refers to a single breach. It is not one penalty for several breaches. If a director were to be prosecuted for ignoring the CCA’s directions for five different subcontractors, then the sum of that penalty would be increased fivefold. 

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment will be able to investigate and enforce retentions money offences. Further penalties may be incurred if the head contractors do not provide the Ministry with information required to assist investigations. 

Please note that the information contained in this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter and is not intended as legal advice. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. The content may not reflect current legal developments and is subject to revision without notice. 

Other resources you might like

If you found this article helpful and are interested in learning more, there is a wealth of other resources available on our website. We have a wide array of articles and guides on a variety of topics, each designed to provide you with a deeper understanding of the subject matter. We encourage you to explore these resources and deepen your knowledge.

A construction worker wearing a yellow hard hat, safety glasses, and gloves leans on a wooden surface at a construction site. He is looking at the camera, and the background shows a wooden building under construction with windows and scaffolding.

The Court of Appeal sounds the all clear and it’s business as usual under the CCA: so file a payment schedule or pay up!

A decision issued by the High Court last year caused a “head in hands” moment in the construction industry in relation to the payment claim regime. The High Court set aside a statutory demand which had been filed to enforce a payment claim as a debt due even though no dispute had previously been raised by way of a valid payment schedule.[1] The Court of Appeal has now overturned that decision and confirmed that if a party to a construction contract wants to challenge a payment claim, they must issue a valid payment schedule.[2] Let’s look at what happened.
A construction worker wearing a white safety helmet and a face mask is examining a floor plan attached to a concrete wall. The worker points at the blueprint with one hand while adjusting it with the other, standing in a partially constructed building, likely reviewing details related to the construction contract.

An adjudicator’s decision on a construction contract is definitely worth the paper it’s written on!

It’s only in rare circumstances that the courts will interfere with the decision of an adjudicator on a construction contract. A recent decision out of the English Technology and Construction Court (TCC) considered arguments that an adjudicator acted in breach of the principles of natural justice by reaching a decision on a basis not advanced by either party to the adjudication and by failing to consider a defence raised by the defendant.
A man wearing an orange hard hat and a white shirt with a black tie points to a large screen displaying architectural plans. He is standing in a modern office space, explaining the details of the design.

Southern Summary Judgment Stoush

In the Invercargill High Court, in Northlake Investments Limited v Civil Construction Limited [2023] NZHC 2715, a developer and contractor battled in substantive proceedings following an adjudication under the Construction Contracts Act 2002 (the Act). The key issue was whether an adjudicator’s determination on a disputed payment claim was not binding because the contractor had not complied with the contractual procedures for referral to adjudication, or whether the Act overrode those contractual procedures.

Get in touch

Contact our team today to see how we can help

Contact us

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.