Let’s be honest.

No one starts a leaky building remediation project thinking:
“I can’t wait to spend the next two years arguing about variations, delays, and who’s paying for what.”

Yet that’s exactly where many projects end up.

And more often than not, the root cause isn’t bad intentions or poor workmanship — it’s a contract that wasn’t designed for the reality of remediation.

Before the scaffold goes up, before the cladding comes off, one decision quietly sets the tone for everything that follows:

Which construction contract are you going to use?

In New Zealand, the conversation usually comes down to two familiar names:
NZS 3910:2023 and NEC3. Both are good tools. But like all tools, they work best when used for the right job.

Why remediation projects play by different rules

If you’re building something new, most of the risk sits on paper: drawings, specs, consents, pricing.

Remediation is different.

You might have reports, intrusive testing, and expert opinions — but no one truly knows what’s hiding inside the walls until they’re opened. And when they are opened, surprises are common:

timber that looked sound but isn’t,

damage that’s wider than expected

details that don’t match the drawings

That uncertainty doesn’t just affect construction — it affects trust, cost, time, and relationships.

A good remediation contract accepts this reality.
A bad one pretends certainty exists when it doesn’t.

NZS 3910:2023 — the familiar workhorse (with a few upgrades)

NZS 3910 is the contract most people in the industry know. Contractors are comfortable with it. Administrators understand it. Courts have seen it before. That familiarity can be incredibly valuable — especially on smaller or mid‑scale projects.

The 2023 update introduced some changes that matter for remediation:

Clearer hats, clearer decisions
The traditional Engineer role is now split:

one person administers the contract for the owner, and

an independent certifier makes impartial decisions

On remediation projects — where instructions and changes come thick and fast — knowing who is acting for whom reduces confusion and tension.

Liability now has edges
Contractor liability is fault‑based, and a cap may apply. That can be sensible risk management, but it’s something owners and body corporates should understand early, not discover mid‑dispute.

A nod toward collaboration
The new Target Price option and early warning obligations move NZS 3910 slightly closer to a collaborative model — which remediation desperately needs.

That said, NZS 3910 still assumes a level of certainty that remediation simply doesn’t deliver. Left unmodified, it can encourage arguments about scope rather than solutions to problems.

NEC3 — built for “we don’t know yet” projects

NEC3 starts from a different mindset.

Instead of saying “this is the price — now defend it”, NEC3 says:
“Things will change. Let’s agree how we deal with that up front.”

Two features make it particularly suited to leaky building work.

Early warnings (no surprises allowed)
If something might affect cost, time, or quality, it must be flagged early. Not at the end. Not in a claim. Early.

That simple discipline can stop small issues turning into big fights.

One mechanism instead of three
NEC3’s compensation events combine variations, extensions of time, and cost changes into one transparent process. Time and money are assessed while the issue is fresh — not litigated months later.

But NEC3 isn’t magic.

It requires strong project management, disciplined administration, and participants who are willing to engage properly. On small jobs, it can feel heavy. On complex jobs, it can be a lifesaver.

So… which one should you choose?

Here’s the honest answer we give clients:

NZS 3910:2023 is often right where simplicity, familiarity, and proportion matter

NEC3 comes into its own as complexity, scale, risk, and stakeholder numbers increase

What almost never works is choosing either contract “off the shelf” and hoping for the best.

Leaky building remediation brings together:

latent defects

uncertain scope

body corporate dynamics

statutory obligations

None of that fits neatly inside a standard‑form contract without thought.

What really matters

Successful remediation projects aren’t remembered for their contracts.
They’re remembered for how problems were handled when the unexpected appeared — because it always does.

A well‑chosen, well‑managed contract should:

allow change without chaos

make risk visible instead of hidden

encourage solutions over blame

That’s not about legal cleverness. It’s about experience.

---

Our view

The contract is not a box to tick.
It’s the operating system for your project.

Get it right, and remediation becomes manageable.
Get it wrong, and even good people can end up in bad disputes.

At Aamsko, we work at the intersection of construction law, project management, and contract administration. We don’t just draft contracts — we actively manage projects where things change on site, because in remediation, they always do.

If you want a contract — and a project team — built for reality, not theory, we should talk.

That’s usually a much easier conversation to have before the scaffold goes up.