No published New Zealand figure for the cost of delay and extension-of-time disputes

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)