Residential building dispute — service of payment claim — Construction Contracts Act 2002, ss 20, 23, 24, 29, 79 & 80 — Construction Contracts Regulations 2003, rr 9 & 10 — CJ Parker Construction Limited (in Liq) v Ketan & Ors [2017] NZCA 3. There were two matters before the Court. The first, an application by the defendant for a re-hearing following a decision striking out her counterclaim against the plaintiff. The second, the plaintiff's claim for judgment against the defendant pursuant to the Construction Contracts Act ("the Act"). The Judge declined the first application on the basis that the Act provides a strict statutory regime and the defendant's claim did not fall within it. The Judge noted the defendant could pursue her claim in separate proceedings, and then turned to the second claim. In September 2015, the parties entered into a construction contract for building the defendant's home. The contract set out the terms under which the defendant would pay for materials and labour. It was agreed that materials would be ordered using the plaintiff's trade accounts and that the defendant would pay for the items directly using her credit card, in order to be able to collect air points on the card. However, five invoices were not paid or only paid in part. In September 2016, the plaintiff issued a payment claim for $16,438.47, but no payment was made, leading to the plaintiff's action for the amount, interest and costs. The issues before the Court were: (i) Did the payment claim comply with s 20(2) of the Act?; and (ii) Was the payment claim sufficiently served? On the issue of whether the payments claimed complied with the requirements set out in s 20(2) of the Act, the Judge held they did not. The invoices given to the defendant provided insufficient information to understand the particulars claimed and how they had been calculated. The Judge noted these deficiencies in the invoices were not technical in nature but, when viewed in context, meant the payment claim was not sufficiently detailed enough for the defendant to comprehend. On whether the payment claim was sufficiently served, the Judge held that it was not, as the defendant did not consent to the service of the payment claim by email. The procedure for the issuance of a payment claim is provided by regulation 10(1)(b) of the Construction Contracts Regulations, and the Judge was not satisfied that it could be reasonably inferred that by previously using email to communicate on day to day matters, the defendant consented to service in this manner. For those reasons, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed and the defendant was entitled to make a claim to recover disbursements as a self-represented party. Judgment Date: 13 March 2018.