No published New Zealand figure for latent-condition or differing-site-condition disputes

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)