Disputes: what it costs a construction contractor

What it is. 50.9% of the amount claimed, across the 779 applications whose determination was released.

Sample. All 1,112 NSW adjudication applications in 2011-12, of which 779 reached a released determination. Claims under $100,000 (74% of determinations) were awarded about 84% of the amount claimed.

What it is not. One financial year, fourteen years old. It covers only disputes that reached a decision: the 333 applications withdrawn, settled or dismissed are outside it, so it is the recovery rate once adjudicated, not on every claim. Larger claims recovered a smaller share. Not comparable with the Queensland 2024-25 figure or the 2018-2023 success ratios, which divide by different populations.

Our arithmetic. $77,903,361 adjudicated / $153,143,608 claimed = 0.509 (Fig. 4, p.4). The report states the same result as 'about half of the aggregate amount claimed'.

Where it came from

• NSW Department of Finance & Services (statistics by the UNSW Adjudication Research + Reporting Unit) (2012), Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 - Adjudication Activity in New South Wales, Annual Report 2011/12
  Fig. 4 'Total claimed and adjudicated amounts 2011/12', p.4; Table 1, p.4; Table A, p.6 · source record

History

• 2026-11-02 subtype 'payment' is now the registers' cause 'payment_dispute' (schema 3.0.0, SM070)

disputes/dispute_recovery_adjudication_nsw_2011 · AU-NSW · F ·the record ·link to this figure ·dispute this figure(or email support@demiton.io)

Open this figure's own page

What it is. 8.56% of the amount claimed, awarded across 214 decisions.

Sample. AU$81.9m awarded against AU$957.0m claimed across 214 decisions. Queensland only, security-of-payment disputes, all construction sectors.

What it is not. One A$634m claim dominates the total; without it the award rate is at most about 25%. The ratio is the research pass's own calculation, not the QBCC's. Do not use it as a typical loss rate.

Our arithmetic. AU$81.9m awarded / AU$957.0m claimed = 0.0856 (Table 23; the ratio is ours, not the QBCC's)

Where it came from

• Queensland Building and Construction Commission (2025), QBCC Annual Report 2024-2025, Table 23
  Table 23, p.23 · source record

History

• 2026-11-02 subtype 'payment' is now the registers' cause 'payment_dispute' (schema 3.0.0, SM070)

disputes/dispute_recovery_adjudication · AU-QLD · F ·the record ·link to this figure ·dispute this figure(or email support@demiton.io)

Open this figure's own page

What it is. 14.9% of the amount claimed in adjudication decisions released, pooled over five financial years.

Range 8.56% to 45.6% (reported min max)

Sample. Every decision released by the QBCC Adjudication Registry under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017, 2020-21 to 2024-25: 983 decisions. By year: 2020-21 45.6%, 2021-22 30.6%, 2022-23 14.3%, 2023-24 27.3%, 2024-25 8.6%.

What it is not. Pooled dollars, so the largest claims dominate: 2024-25 alone is 65% of the amount claimed, and one A$634m claim sits inside it. The annual rate swings from 8.6% to 45.6%. It counts only disputes that reached a released decision, not every payment claim.

Our arithmetic. Awarded / claimed on decisions released, by year: 2020-21 $37,503,111 / $82,254,751 = 0.456; 2021-22 $15,854,534 / $51,816,751 = 0.306; 2022-23 $21,858,656 / $152,408,699 = 0.143; 2023-24 $61,524,294 / $225,306,009 = 0.273; 2024-25 $81,873,482 / $956,966,294 = 0.086. Pooled over five years: $218,614,077 / $1,468,752,504 = 0.1488.

Where it came from

• Queensland Building and Construction Commission (2021), QBCC Annual Report 2020-21
  Table 6, decisions released · source record
• Queensland Building and Construction Commission (2022), QBCC Annual Report 2021-22
  Table 6, decisions released · source record
• Queensland Building and Construction Commission (2023), QBCC Annual Report 2022-23
  Table 6, decisions released · source record
• Queensland Building and Construction Commission (2024), QBCC Annual Report 2023-24
  Table 6, decisions released · source record
• Queensland Building and Construction Commission (2025), QBCC Annual Report 2024-2025, Table 23
  Table 23, p.23 · source record

History

• 2026-11-02 subtype 'payment' is now the registers' cause 'payment_dispute' (schema 3.0.0, SM070)

disputes/dispute_recovery_adjudication_qld_series · AU-QLD · F ·the record ·link to this figure ·dispute this figure(or email support@demiton.io)

Open this figure's own page

What it is. 12% of the amount claimed in all adjudication applications, including those that never reached a determination; NSW figure, with QLD and VIC as the range.

Range 12% to 35% (reported min max)

Sample. State regulators' adjudication statistics, NSW, QLD and VIC, 2018-2023: 9,784 applications, 5,657 determinations. NSW is 12%, QLD 18%, VIC 35%.

What it is not. The denominator includes the roughly 40% of applications that never reached a determination (withdrawn, settled or paid), so this understates what claimants recover on decided disputes: NSW 2011-12 on decided disputes only was 50.9%. A consultancy's analysis, with internal inconsistencies: Victoria's totals differ between the December 2023 and February 2024 editions, and the NSW prose total ($5.5bn) disagrees with its own table ($6.28bn).

Where it came from

• Liu (DGA Australia) (2023), Review of Adjudication Outcomes Across Australian States (NSW, Vic and Qld): Are the regimes effective?
  Table A, p.25; definition of the Success Ratio, p.26 · source record

History

• 2026-11-02 subtype 'payment' is now the registers' cause 'payment_dispute' (schema 3.0.0, SM070)

disputes/dispute_recovery_adjudication_success_ratio · AU-NSW, AU-QLD, AU-VIC · F ·the record ·link to this figure ·dispute this figure(or email support@demiton.io)

Open this figure's own page

What it is. Australian dollars lost per subcontractor reporting non-payment, excluding submissions about multiple creditors.

Sample. 146 submissions to a Queensland Government taskforce in 2019, mostly from South Queensland and from small contractors (90% under $12m revenue). Losses ranged from $1,500 to $6 million per individual.

What it is not. Self-reported and self-selected: the subcontractors who wrote in, not a sample of all subcontractors, and their own statement of what they were owed. The $112m multi-creditor submission is excluded from the average. Per case, not a share of contract value, so it is never multiplied by one.

Where it came from

• Special Joint Taskforce (Byrne; Queensland Police Service, QBCC and ODPP) (2019), Special Joint Taskforce: Investigating subcontractor non-payment in the Queensland building and construction industry
  Section 1.4.3 'Nature of submissions', p.16 · source record

History

• 2026-11-02 subtype 'payment' is now the registers' cause 'payment_dispute' (schema 3.0.0, SM070)

disputes/dispute_subcontractor_nonpayment_qld · AU-QLD · F ·the record ·link to this figure ·dispute this figure(or email support@demiton.io)

Open this figure's own page

What it is. Australian dollars claimed per incident: the amount of the respondent's most recent claim for delayed or disputed payment made under a security of payment Act, averaged over the respondents who had made one.

Sample. A survey commissioned for the Murray Review and run by AMR Interactive: 526 responses from contractors and subcontractors in all states and territories, circulated by industry associations on a voluntary basis. Only 23% of respondents had ever made a claim under security of payment laws, so the average can only be over those claimants; the report does not give their number, and does not say how many answered the amount question. The most common band among those who claimed in the last two years was $100,001 to $500,000 (25%). Not all of this money was awarded or lost: this is what was claimed.

What it is not. Money claimed, not money lost or awarded: the claim may be for delayed payment as well as disputed payment, and the report gives no outcome for it. A self-selected sample: 46.8% of respondents were from Queensland, 30.8% from Western Australia and 17.9% from NSW, which leaves 4.5% for Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, the Territories and the ACT together; 45% were electrical contractors and 73% worked for firms of 20 or fewer people. The average therefore describes small and medium trades in three states and is not a typical national claim. It is one claim per respondent (the most recent), as the respondents recalled it. The report writes 'average' and does not say whether it is a mean or a median; no median is given. The report does not date the survey; the Review ran during 2017, which is the price year used. A per-claim amount, not a share of contract value, so it is never multiplied by one.

Where it came from

• J Murray AM, for the Australian Government (Department of Jobs and Small Business) (2017), Review of Security of Payment Laws: Building Trust and Harmony
  Appendix B 'Survey of contractors', 'Security of payment laws and claims made', p.324 · source record

Considered and set aside

• Griffith University (Campos Gutierrez, Panuwatwanich and Walker): Payments were a factor in 50 of 78 Australian court cases, but that counts cases and gives no amounts.
• Liu (DGA Australia): Amounts claimed and determined for NSW, Queensland and Victoria only, so state-level and not an AU figure.
• NSW Department of Finance & Services (statistics by the UNSW Adjudication Research + Reporting Unit): NSW 2011-12 adjudication amounts only; state-level and fourteen years old.
• Western Sydney University and Griffith University (Rahnamayiezekavat and others): Payment is 31% of 230 NSW cases, a frequency for one state with no amounts.
• Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (ACICA): National arbitration caseload with total values but no payment-dispute split.

disputes/payment_dispute_sop_claim_amount_au · AU · F ·the record ·link to this figure ·dispute this figure(or email support@demiton.io)

Open this figure's own page

What it is. None - no Australian national source found gives an amount, a share of contract value or a share of disputes for practical completion, defects, final account, retention or security held past release.

Sample. Search terms: retention money Australia estimate held; practical completion dispute Australia; final account dispute; defects liability dispute cost; building defects rectification national study; security of payment retention; Murray review, Productivity Commission, Infrastructure Australia, Arcadis, HKA CRUX. No national count of retention or final account disputes was found: the Murray review (p.270) says subcontractors often judge recovery of retention not worth its cost, but does not size it. A web estimate of about $18 billion of retentions outstanding was seen only in a vendor's back-of-envelope post and is not offered.

What it is not. Recorded as `none` on purpose. Ten sources were opened (listed above); none states an Australian national amount or share for close-out disputes. The UK retention survey (Pye Tait 2017) is already in the corpus under another disease and does not apply to Australia. This is the next place to look for research, not a zero.

Where it came from

• J Murray AM, for the Australian Government (Department of Jobs and Small Business) (2017), Review of Security of Payment Laws: Building Trust and Harmony
  Section 15.5 'Retentions and bank guarantees', p.270 · source record

Considered and set aside

• Griffith University (Campos Gutierrez, Panuwatwanich and Walker): Damages (45 of 78 cases) mostly means defective work, but there is no close-out category and no amounts.
• Western Sydney University and Griffith University (Rahnamayiezekavat and others): Quality (workmanship) is 13% of 230 NSW cases (Table 3, p.9), but not split by stage and has no amounts; NSW only.
• Special Joint Taskforce (Byrne; Queensland Police Service, QBCC and ODPP): Queensland subcontractors report final claims cut for defects or liquidated damages; the $288,000 average loss is for all non-payment, not close-out, and is state-level.
• Love, Irani, Smith, Regan & Liu: Draws on 67 projects' completed final accounts, but measures change orders (11% of work value), not disputes about the final account.
• Productivity Commission: Silent on retention money, defects liability and final accounts (its 'retention' hits concern workforce).
• Australian Construction Industry Forum and Australasian Procurement and Construction Council: Mentions extensions to practical completion and defects in subsurface clauses only; no data.
• Infrastructure Australia: Names completion and commissioning as a risk by sector with no dispute data.
• HKA: Reports deficient workmanship on 20.1% of Americas projects; no close-out category and nothing Australian.
• Arcadis: Lists defective specifications among typical claims; no close-out stage, amounts or Australian split.
• Liu (DGA Australia): State adjudication totals for all payment claims; retention and final account claims are not separated.

disputes/closeout_dispute_none_au · AU · F ·the record ·link to this figure ·dispute this figure(or email support@demiton.io)

Open this figure's own page

What it is. None - no Australian national source found gives an amount, a share of contract value or a share of a claim for disputes about extensions of time, liquidated damages or delay analysis.

Sample. Search terms: extension of time dispute Australia; liquidated damages dispute cost Australia; delay claims value Australian contractors survey; time-related costs adjudication; delay and disruption claims share of disputes Australia; Arcadis, HKA CRUX and Australian Disputes Centre or ACICA statistics. A frequency exists: timing was a factor in 38 of 78 Australian court cases from 1966 to 2012 (Campos Gutierrez 2013), and time disputes are 6% of 230 NSW cases 2002-2021, but neither is a cost.

What it is not. Recorded as `none` on purpose. Eleven sources were opened (listed above); none states an Australian national amount or share for delay disputes. The case-count frequencies are for litigated cases only, from published judgments, and say nothing about what was at stake. This is the next place to look for research, not a zero.

Where it came from

• Griffith University (Campos Gutierrez, Panuwatwanich and Walker) (2013), Learning from the Past: Analysis of Factors Contributing to Construction Project Disputes in Australia
  Section 4.1 and Figure 2; Table 1 (timing row) · source record

Considered and set aside

• J Murray AM, for the Australian Government (Department of Jobs and Small Business): Says time-related cost claims are too complex for rapid adjudication (p.123) and that Victoria excludes them (p.119); a legal and policy account with no amounts or shares.
• Western Sydney University and Griffith University (Rahnamayiezekavat and others): Time disputes are 6% of 230 NSW cases (Table 3, p.9); a frequency, for one state, with no amounts.
• HKA: Global extension-of-time claims averaged 48.8% of contract schedules on projects completing from 2020; that is days, not money, and Oceania is shown only for claimed costs across all causes (13.3% of budgets), not delay.
• Arcadis: Its Australia section (pp.24-25) lists typical dispute reasons with no figures; global averages only.
• Arcadis: Global and North American averages and ranked causes with no Australian breakdown and no delay amounts.
• Productivity Commission: Discusses delays and risk allocation on public infrastructure and mentions litigation, but holds no data on delay dispute amounts or shares.
• Infrastructure Australia: Notes insurers reacting to a growth in claims for delay (p.49) without counting or valuing them.
• Grattan Institute: Single-project accounts of delay disputes (West Gate Tunnel) drawn from reports; no sample, no cause shares.
• Curtin University of Technology and University of Newcastle (Love, Davis, London and Jasper; CRC for Construction Innovation): Lists extension of time claims third in a 2006 Australian law firm ranking of dispute causes, second-hand and without percentages or amounts.
• Special Joint Taskforce (Byrne; Queensland Police Service, QBCC and ODPP): Queensland only; records subcontractor complaints about liquidated damages and time bars but no delay amounts.

disputes/delay_dispute_none_au · AU · F ·the record ·link to this figure ·dispute this figure(or email support@demiton.io)

Open this figure's own page

What it is. None - no Australian national source found gives an amount, a share of contract value or a share of disputes for latent or differing site conditions.

Sample. Search terms: latent conditions dispute Australia; differing site conditions claims share Australia; unforeseen ground conditions claims contractors Australia survey; subsurface risk allocation disputes; geotechnical claims Australian infrastructure; Infrastructure Australia, ACIF and APCC, Arcadis and HKA CRUX. No frequency of latent condition disputes was found for Australia either; the only counts are rankings, and the closest is a perception survey on who should carry the risk.

What it is not. Recorded as `none` on purpose. Ten sources were opened (listed above); none states an Australian national amount, share or outcome rate for latent condition disputes. The $1 billion Victorian case is one contested project and is not offered as a benchmark. This is the next place to look for research, not a zero.

Where it came from

• J Murray AM, for the Australian Government (Department of Jobs and Small Business) (2017), Review of Security of Payment Laws: Building Trust and Harmony
  Chapter 10, p.123 (latent conditions, time-related costs and disputed variations in adjudication) · source record

Considered and set aside

• Australian Construction Industry Forum and Australasian Procurement and Construction Council: National practice note on how Australian forms allocate subsurface risk; guidance with no claims data or amounts.
• Infrastructure Australia: Perceptions of who should carry latent condition risk (Figure 28, PDF p.47) from a market sounding survey; no dispute counts, amounts or outcomes.
• Productivity Commission: Explains who carries latent conditions under construct-only and design-and-construct contracts (PDF pp.108-109); no data on disputes.
• Grattan Institute: One Victorian case (West Gate Tunnel soil contamination) with an estimated $1 billion extra cost; a single contested project, not a sample.
• HKA: Unforeseen physical conditions triggered claims on 17.4% of Americas projects and 23.7% of renewable energy projects; Oceania has no split by cause and nothing is Australian.
• Arcadis: Differing site conditions ranked third in North America; Australia section lists no site-condition figures.
• Arcadis: Differing site conditions are new in third place in the North America ranking (p.14), not the global one (p.11); a rank, with no amounts and no Australian breakdown.
• Griffith University (Campos Gutierrez, Panuwatwanich and Walker): Site conditions are not among the five factors found in 78 Australian court cases; no figure.
• Curtin University of Technology and University of Newcastle (Love, Davis, London and Jasper; CRC for Construction Innovation): Lists site conditions fourth in a 2006 Australian law firm ranking of dispute causes, second-hand and without percentages.
• Western Sydney University and Griffith University (Rahnamayiezekavat and others): NSW only; its 13 case categories include no site-condition category, so no share.

disputes/latent_conditions_dispute_none_au · AU · F ·the record ·link to this figure ·dispute this figure(or email support@demiton.io)

Open this figure's own page

What it is. None - no Australian national source found gives an amount, a share of contract value or a share of a claim for disputes about whether work was a variation or what it is worth.

Sample. Search terms: variation dispute Australia; disputed variations share of disputes; scope change disputes Australian contractors survey; change orders claims value Australia; variation claims adjudication; Arcadis, HKA CRUX, Murray review. A frequency exists: variations were a factor in 23 of 78 Australian court cases from 1966 to 2012 (Campos Gutierrez 2013), and variation is 3% of 230 NSW cases, but neither is a cost.

What it is not. Recorded as `none` on purpose. Ten sources were opened (listed above); none states an Australian national amount or share of a claim for variation disputes. The 11% change-order figure measures change, not dispute, and comes from one contractor's projects. This is the next place to look for research, not a zero.

Where it came from

• Griffith University (Campos Gutierrez, Panuwatwanich and Walker) (2013), Learning from the Past: Analysis of Factors Contributing to Construction Project Disputes in Australia
  Section 4.1 and Figure 2; Table 1 (variation row) · source record

Considered and set aside

• J Murray AM, for the Australian Government (Department of Jobs and Small Business): Describes how the Acts treat disputed variations (Victoria caps some at 10% of the contract sum, p.119) and calls them too complex for rapid adjudication (p.123); legal text with no amounts or shares.
• Western Sydney University and Griffith University (Rahnamayiezekavat and others): Variation is 3% and scope 2% of 230 NSW cases (Table 3, p.9); one state, case counts, no amounts.
• Love, Irani, Smith, Regan & Liu: Australian civil: change orders were 11% of work value on 67 public infrastructure projects of one contractor. That is the size of variations, not of disputes about them, and is one contractor's own projects.
• Productivity Commission: Cites second-hand that 60 to 90 per cent of variations come from poor design documentation; a share of variations, not of disputes, with no amounts.
• HKA: Scope change was blamed on 33.4% of projects worldwide; global, a frequency, and not an Australian figure.
• Arcadis: Global cause ranking led by contract administration; its Australia section gives no variation figures.
• Arcadis: Owner-directed changes tied third among global causes; a rank with no amount and no Australian split.
• Curtin University of Technology and University of Newcastle (Love, Davis, London and Jasper; CRC for Construction Innovation): Reports a 2006 Australian law firm ranking with variations to scope first, second-hand and without percentages.
• Special Joint Taskforce (Byrne; Queensland Police Service, QBCC and ODPP): Queensland only; subcontractors report contention over what counts as a variation but give no amounts by cause.
• Liu (DGA Australia): NSW, Queensland and Victorian adjudication totals for all payment claims; no split for variations and not a national series.

disputes/variation_dispute_none_au · AU · F ·the record ·link to this figure ·dispute this figure(or email support@demiton.io)

Open this figure's own page

What it is. 19.2% of the amount claimed: the claimant's own costs of taking a payment dispute to adjudication, averaged over all claims.

Sample. All statutory adjudications administered by the Building Disputes Tribunal, 2003-2023 (43 to 152 cases a year). Respondents' costs average 17.64% and the adjudicator's fee 16.37% of the claim.

What it is not. One tribunal's own caseload, not every New Zealand adjudication. An average of per-claim percentages, so small claims dominate: under $30,000 the claimant's costs are 21.6%, over $10 million 1.74%. The claimant is usually, not always, the contractor or subcontractor seeking payment.

Where it came from

• Building Disputes Tribunal (Te Taraipiunara Tautohe Hanga Whare) (2023), Tracking the Trends: A report on statutory adjudication in Aotearoa New Zealand 2003-2023
  'Costs - How much does it cost?', 'Average costs all claims' table, pp.31-32 · source record

History

• 2026-09-26 Reclassified as derived contractor loss (schema 2.2.0), money spent fighting a dispute rather than the disputed loss itself.
• 2026-11-02 subtype 'payment' is now the registers' cause 'payment_dispute' (schema 3.0.0, SM070)

disputes/dispute_adjudication_party_costs_nz · NZ · F ·the record ·link to this figure ·dispute this figure(or email support@demiton.io)

Open this figure's own page

What it is. None - New Zealand sources state a typical retention rate and count final-payment cases, but none measures the value of close-out disputes.

Sample. Searched: MBIE Construction Contracts Act review adjudication statistics retentions regulatory impact statement; New Zealand retention money regime review KPMG MBIE retentions held estimated value subcontractors; KPMG 2019 implementation review retention money regime survey percentage released late; Weathertight Homes Resolution Service claims statistics average claim value building defects; New Zealand construction disputes causes survey; New Zealand Building Disputes Tribunal AMINZ statistics. Frequencies exist: 28% of Russell McVeagh's 2026 respondents (95, late 2025) expect defective or incomplete work to cause disputes; 25% of the 40 High Court payment cases in Ramachandra and Rotimi 2011 were about final payments; retention is commonly 2% to 10% of contract value (MBIE 2020 and 2021, a stated practice range with no sample) or up to 10% on a sliding scale (KPMG 2019, 71 firms). Neither is a dispute cost or a share of contract value that was disputed. KPMG's review was readable at building.govt.nz and the Weathertight Homes statistics through the Internet Archive copy; neither holds a value for close-out disputes. Not opened: the Arcadis and HKA disputes reports (their published figures are global or North American; no New Zealand split was found); Jelodar et al. 2016 (ASCE, paywalled, read only as summarised in Silva et al. 2023).

What it is not. Recorded as none on purpose. A retention rate is how much is held as routine security, so multiplying it by a contract value would overstate what is disputed at close-out. The UK retention figure in the corpus (entitlement_retention_held) is not New Zealand evidence.

Where it came from

• Building Disputes Tribunal (Te Taraipiunara Tautohe Hanga Whare) (2023), Tracking the Trends: A report on statutory adjudication in Aotearoa New Zealand 2003-2023
  'Types of issues', p.29 (the tribunal says it has not collected detailed statistics on the types of issues referred; defective or incomplete work claims are listed as common) · source record

Considered and set aside

• Ramachandra and Rotimi: 40 High Court payment cases, 2008-2010: 10 (25%) concerned final payments and 1 retention, with claimed amounts per case but no close-out total or recovery rate for them.
• Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment: MBIE 2020 impact summary states retention is held at between 2 and 10 per cent of the contract price and paid after 12 months; a stated practice range with no sample, and not the amount disputed or overdue.
• Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment: MBIE 2021 disclosure statement repeats the 2% to 10% range and the 12 month release; no count or value of retention withheld or disputed.
• Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Building Performance): MBIE retention complaints page: fine ceilings of $50,000 (individual) and $200,000 (company) for breaches; no complaint counts or outcomes.
• Standards New Zealand: Draft contract wording for practical completion, final account, defects liability and retention (clauses 9.11, 10.4, 11; p.57); mechanisms, not data.
• Russell McVeagh: 2020 survey: 19% expect quality or inexperience issues to cause disputes; no close-out item and no amounts.
• Hesketh Henry: Practitioner paper that divides disputes into payment and defect claims and notes defects surface long after completion; no figures.
• Silva, Domingo and Ameer Ali (Massey University): 35 court cases: quality of works is the area of 4 cases and testing and inspection of 1; no final account, retention or practical completion category, no amounts.
• Russell McVeagh: 2026 survey of 95 New Zealand professionals (late 2025): 28% expect defective or incomplete work to cause disputes, and 92% say their contracts typically provide for retentions, 80% of those in cash (pp.17-19); shares of respondents, no dollars and no retention amount or rate.
• KPMG (for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment): MBIE-commissioned review of the retention regime (survey of 223 firms, 71 responses, plus interviews): retention up to 10% of contract value, released half at practical completion and half at the end of the defects liability period; interviewees knew of no retention disputes before adjudicators. Its dollar figures are four insolvencies (about $8.35m held), not disputes, and it measures no value of retentions held or disputed.
• Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment: MBIE monthly counts of weathertightness claims (7,377 claims for 12,810 properties at 31 January 2019): counts only, no claim value, and homeowners' defect claims rather than contractor close-out disputes.
• Ramachandra and Rotimi: Survey in which disputes over quality of work score 3.53 out of 5 as a cause of payment problems (a perception score, not money); retention appears only in its literature review.

disputes/closeout_dispute_none_nz · NZ · F ·the record ·link to this figure ·dispute this figure(or email support@demiton.io)

Open this figure's own page

What it is. None - New Zealand sources name delay, extension-of-time and liquidated damages disputes but publish no amount, share of contract or share of claims for them.

Sample. Searched: New Zealand construction disputes causes survey variations delay payment latent conditions; MBIE Construction Contracts Act review adjudication statistics retentions; Arcadis Global Construction Disputes Report New Zealand average dispute value causes; New Zealand construction delay causes extension of time liquidated damages empirical study; New Zealand Building Disputes Tribunal AMINZ Resolution Institute statistics disputes caseload value. Frequencies exist: 20% of Russell McVeagh's 2020 respondents (no respondent count stated) and 68% of its 2026 respondents (95, late 2025) expect delays and extensions of time to cause disputes, shares that differ widely between editions and are not read as a trend, and the tribunal lists extension-of-time, delay-cost and liquidated damages claims among the issues it commonly sees, but it is not a cost. Not opened: the Arcadis and HKA disputes reports (their published figures are global or North American; no New Zealand split was found); Jelodar et al. 2016 (ASCE, paywalled, read only as summarised in Silva et al. 2023).

What it is not. Recorded as none on purpose: the only New Zealand evidence found is frequency or perception, and the largest national source, the Building Disputes Tribunal, states that it has not collected detailed statistics on the types of issues in its adjudications. The tribunal's own average costs and claim sizes cover all claims together, not delay claims.

Where it came from

• Building Disputes Tribunal (Te Taraipiunara Tautohe Hanga Whare) (2023), Tracking the Trends: A report on statutory adjudication in Aotearoa New Zealand 2003-2023
  'Types of issues', p.29 (the tribunal says it has not collected detailed statistics on the types of issues referred) · source record

Considered and set aside

• Russell McVeagh: A 2020 survey of New Zealand industry members: 20% named delays and extensions of time as an expected cause of disputes and employer variations as a leading cause of delay (pp.4, 10). Shares of respondents who expect a cause, not dollars.
• Hesketh Henry: Practitioner paper that puts delay and disruption costs among payment claims and gives no figures.
• Russell McVeagh: 2026 survey of 95 New Zealand professionals (late 2025): 68% expect delay and extension of time claims to cause disputes over the next two years, and 77% name principal-initiated variations to scope as a key driver of delay (pp.15, 18-19). Shares of respondents, no dollars.
• Silva, Domingo and Ameer Ali (Massey University): 35 court cases coded by cause and area: no case is coded to delay or extension of time, and no amounts are recorded.
• Silva, Domingo and Ameer Ali (Massey University): Interviews with 14 experts on avoiding disputes, including agreeing extension-of-time mechanisms in advance; no frequencies or amounts.
• Standards New Zealand: Draft contract wording for extension-of-time grounds and notice (clause 10.3); a mechanism, not data.
• Ramachandra and Rotimi: Survey rating time overrun 3.56 out of 5 as a cause of payment problems; a perception score, not a delay-dispute measure.
• Ramachandra and Rotimi: 40 High Court payment cases, 2008-2010, with claimed amounts but no split by delay or extension of time.
• Department of Building and Housing: Regulatory impact statement on adjudication reform: no breakdown of disputes by cause, no values.

disputes/delay_dispute_none_nz · NZ · F ·the record ·link to this figure ·dispute this figure(or email support@demiton.io)

Open this figure's own page

What it is. None - no New Zealand source found values disputes over ground or site conditions in dollars, a share of contract or a share of claims.

Sample. Searched: New Zealand differing site conditions latent conditions construction contract NZS 3910 dispute cases study; NZS 3910 latent conditions unforeseen ground conditions site conditions risk contractor principal; Te Waihanga Infrastructure Commission ground conditions risk geotechnical investigation cost certainty; Transmission Gully settlement CPB HEB claims ground conditions NZTA; New Zealand construction disputes causes survey. A frequency exists: 28% of Russell McVeagh's 2026 respondents (95, late 2025) expect unexpected site conditions to cause disputes over the next two years; it is a share of respondents, not a cost, and the 2020 edition did not ask the question. A project-level settlement on one large road project was reported in the press, but the agency's own releases could not be opened, so no figure is filed. Not opened: the Arcadis and HKA disputes reports (their published figures are global or North American; no New Zealand split was found); Jelodar et al. 2016 (ASCE, paywalled, read only as summarised in Silva et al. 2023).

What it is not. Recorded as none on purpose. The nearest evidence is a contract clause and a regulator's guidance on ground investigation, neither of which measures disputes. Australian latent-condition material is not New Zealand evidence.

Where it came from

• Building Disputes Tribunal (Te Taraipiunara Tautohe Hanga Whare) (2023), Tracking the Trends: A report on statutory adjudication in Aotearoa New Zealand 2003-2023
  'Types of issues', p.29 (the tribunal says it has not collected detailed statistics on the types of issues referred; ground or site conditions are not among the issues it lists as common) · source record

Considered and set aside

• Russell McVeagh: 2020 survey of causes of disputes and delay: ground or site conditions are not an option or a named cause (pp.4-11).
• Russell McVeagh: 2026 survey of 95 New Zealand professionals (late 2025): 28% expect unexpected site conditions to cause disputes over the next two years (pp.18-19); the only New Zealand frequency for this cause found, a share of respondents with no dollars.
• Silva, Domingo and Ameer Ali (Massey University): 35 court cases: no area or cause is ground or site conditions; one case has weather and environmental issues as its primary cause.
• Silva, Domingo and Ameer Ali (Massey University): 14 expert interviews: pre-contract site investigation is one recommended measure; no frequency or amount for ground disputes.
• Standards New Zealand: Draft contract wording for unforeseen physical conditions that an experienced contractor could not reasonably have foreseen (clause 9.5): how the risk is allocated, not how often it is disputed or what it costs.
• Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Building Performance): MBIE regulator guidance that under-investment in ground investigation correlates with cost overruns, evidenced by a 1994 UK highways study; no New Zealand figure.
• Hesketh Henry: Practitioner paper that lists inadequate scoping and design among causes of claims; ground conditions are not mentioned.
• Ramachandra and Rotimi: 40 High Court payment cases: payment claims only, with no ground-condition category.
• Department of Building and Housing: Regulatory impact statement on adjudication reform: no breakdown of disputes by cause, no values.

disputes/latent_conditions_dispute_none_nz · NZ · F ·the record ·link to this figure ·dispute this figure(or email support@demiton.io)

Open this figure's own page

What it is. None - New Zealand sources name variation claims as a common dispute issue but publish no amount, share of contract or share of claims for them.

Sample. Searched: New Zealand construction disputes causes survey variations delay payment latent conditions; New Zealand construction variations cost study Mbachu Domingo variation orders percentage of contract value; MBIE Construction Contracts Act review adjudication statistics; Silva Domingo Ameer Ali court cases New Zealand; Te Waihanga MBIE Law Commission construction disputes cost value adjudication. Frequencies exist: 13% of Russell McVeagh's 2020 respondents (no respondent count stated) expect variations to cause disputes, 39% of its 2026 respondents (95, late 2025) expect changes to the original scope of work to cause them (a different wording, so the two are not read as a trend), and variation entitlement is the area of 2 of 35 court cases in Silva et al. 2023 (my reading of the figure's matrix, not stated in the text), but none is a cost. Not opened: the Arcadis and HKA disputes reports (their published figures are global or North American; no New Zealand split was found); Jelodar et al. 2016 (ASCE, paywalled, read only as summarised in Silva et al. 2023).

What it is not. Recorded as none on purpose. No New Zealand source states what variation disputes are worth, as an amount, a share of contract value or a share of the amount claimed. The Australian and North American variation figures in the corpus are not New Zealand evidence.

Where it came from

• Building Disputes Tribunal (Te Taraipiunara Tautohe Hanga Whare) (2023), Tracking the Trends: A report on statutory adjudication in Aotearoa New Zealand 2003-2023
  'Types of issues', p.29 (the tribunal says it has not collected detailed statistics on the types of issues referred) · source record

Considered and set aside

• Russell McVeagh: 2020 survey: 13% of respondents expect variations to cause disputes and employer variations are seen as a leading cause of delay (pp.4, 10-11). Shares of respondents, no dollars.
• Russell McVeagh: 2026 survey of 95 New Zealand professionals (late 2025): 39% expect changes to the original scope of work to cause disputes over the next two years (pp.18-19); share of respondents, no dollars.
• Silva, Domingo and Ameer Ali (Massey University): 35 court cases: Figure 3 marks variation entitlement in 2 cases and variation procedural in 2; no amounts. Too few cases to state a share.
• Hesketh Henry: Practitioner paper that puts variations among payment claims; no figures.
• Silva, Domingo and Ameer Ali (Massey University): 14 expert interviews on pre-contract steps (variation pricing rates and timeframes); counts of respondents, no dispute frequencies or amounts.
• Standards New Zealand: Draft contract wording for variations, and for unforeseen conditions being treated as a variation (clause 9.5); a mechanism, not data.
• Ramachandra and Rotimi: 40 High Court payment cases say the disputes deal with variation costs among other items, with no split of claimed amounts.
• Ramachandra and Rotimi: Survey of payment problems whose introduction cites valuation of variations as a major subject of adjudication; the survey itself has no variation item.
• Department of Building and Housing: Regulatory impact statement on adjudication reform: no breakdown of disputes by cause, no values.

disputes/variation_dispute_none_nz · NZ · F ·the record ·link to this figure ·dispute this figure(or email support@demiton.io)

Open this figure's own page

What it is. 83% of total arbitration costs, being each party's own lawyers, experts and witnesses.

Sample. 221 ICC awards from 2012, all sectors - not construction-specific.

What it is not. The share is of arbitration cost, not of contract value, which is why the unit is a ratio but the basis is explicitly the arbitration bill. Litigation to recovery is not linear: fighting is expensive in people's time.

Where it came from

• ICC Commission (2015), Decisions on Costs in International Arbitration
  p.5, para 2 · source record

History

• 2026-09-26 Reclassified as derived contractor loss (schema 2.2.0), money spent fighting a dispute rather than the disputed loss itself.

disputes/dispute_party_costs_share · GLOBAL · ALL ·the record ·link to this figure ·dispute this figure(or email support@demiton.io)

Open this figure's own page

What it is. 33.4% of contract budget.

Sample. 2,200+ projects in 114 countries, US$2.433tn of capex, average US$1.25bn. Time extensions sought averaged 65.8% of planned schedules.

What it is not. CEILING, NOT TYPICAL CASE. These are HKA's own engagements - mostly disputed megaprojects that reached expert investigation. Read it as the top of the range for a job already in trouble, not the exposure on an ordinary civil contract.

Where it came from

• HKA (2025), From Insight to Foresight
  'Cumulative impacts' section of the report summary, Internet Archive copy of 8 September 2026 (full report requires a sign-up) · source record

disputes/dispute_sums_at_stake · GLOBAL · F ·the record ·link to this figure ·dispute this figure(or email support@demiton.io)

Open this figure's own page

What it is. US dollars per dispute: the claimed value of the additional work or event as asserted by the contractor.

Sample. Arcadis North America survey, 2024 data year, published June 2025. Average dispute length 12.5 months. The number of respondents is not stated.

What it is not. A consultancy's view of the disputes it sees, in North America only, and the value claimed by the contractor, not the amount won. A mean dragged up by a few very large disputes: 80% of claims are US$25 million or less and almost half under US$5 million. Not a share of contract value, so it is never multiplied by one.

Where it came from

• Arcadis (2025), Construction Disputes in Motion: Speed, Agility, and Adapting to Change (15th Annual Construction Disputes Report, North America)
  'Overall Findings', PDF p.5-6 (average dispute value and length charts); definition, p.2 sidebar; methodology, p.23 · source record

disputes/dispute_value_north_america · CA, US · F ·the record ·link to this figure ·dispute this figure(or email support@demiton.io)

Open this figure's own page