Reviewed Feb 2017The Law Commission’s Report, Liability of Multiple Defendants (NZLC R132), was tabled in Parliament on 24 June 2014. NZACS had an interest (and made submissions) because architects are sometimes put in the position of paying “more than their fair share” in settlements where one of the liable parties (usually the contractor or key subcontractor) is insolvent. Territorial Authorities had a similar concern.Of particular interest to us was whether a claimant should share some of the risk (and/or be entitled to 100% recovery) where there is an insolvent defendant, and whether settlement costs should be allocated amongst the defendants on a proportional basis rather than a joint and several basis.The Law Commission recommended that joint and several allocation should remain, and that claimants were entitled to full recovery even if one or more of the defendants could not contribute. However, they did make an important recommendation that the uncollectible part of the contributions should be shared by the remaining defendants in direct proportion to their responsibility. This is an advance, because all too often the uncollectible is shared on the basis of who is able to meet the payment.Most claims are settled by mediation, so there is a strong force for proportional settlement already at work; but the Law Commission’s recommendation may have the effect of moving the balance further towards proportional settlements. If a full recovery is unfairly sought by the claimant, the response is to advance arguments of contributory negligence.