Building and Construction Law Journal (BCL)
Bridging the theory and practice of building and construction law
About the Journal
The Building and Construction Law Journal (ISSN: 0815-6050) provides an arena for the debate of relevant changes in building and construction law at both a national and international level. This journal provides a bi-monthly update on legislative change, as well as debate and analysis on building and construction claims, disputes, contracts and court decisions.
Every issue of the journal covers core subject-areas plus specially headnoted multi-jurisdictional building and construction law reports.
John Dorter is a leading expert in construction contracts and construction dispute resolution. He is co-author of Building and Construction Contracts in Australia – Law and Practice (looseleaf, Thomson Reuters) and Commercial Arbitration in Australia – Law and Practice (looseleaf, Thomson Reuters).
Mr Dorter has also been the past President of The Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia and has lectured at both The University of Sydney and the University of New South Wales. He is now a Senior Fellow at the University of Melbourne.
New South Wales and Queensland – Christopher Larcos
Victoria and Tasmania – John Sharkey AM
South Australia – Patrick O’Sullivan QC
Western Australia – Ian Nosworthy
South East Asia (Hong Kong, Bangkok and Singapore) – Professor Lawrence Boo
Subscribe or Purchase
To subscribe to this Journal or purchase individual articles, please visit our “Subscribe or Purchase” page.
For the individual contents pages for each Part, click here.
The latest Part of the Building and Construction Law Journal includes the following articles: “Is evaluative mediation the preferred model for construction law disputes?” – Chris Lenz; and “Interface risk” – Paul Tobin. Also in this Part are Reports for the following cases: Facade Treatment Engineering Ltd v Brookfield Multiplex Ltd and Kronenberg v Bridge.
The latest Part of the Building and Construction Law Journal includes the following article: “Termination for convenience: Good faith and other possible restrictions” – Albert Monichino QC and Reports for the following cases: Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Allstate Access (Australia) Pty Ltd; Johnston v Brightstars Holding Company Pty Ltd; and Queensland Building Services Authority v JM Kelly (Project Builders) Pty Ltd. Also in this Part is an editorial and a book review.
The latest Part of the Building and Construction Law Journal includes the following article: “Judicial review of security of payment adjudications: Key doctrinal uncertainties and proposals for reform” – Philip Marquet; and Reports for the following cases: McNab Developments (Qld) Pty Ltd v MAK Construction Services Pty Ltd (2013 and 2014) and Gwelo Developments Pty Ltd v Brierty Ltd.
The latest Part of the Building and Construction Law Journal includes the following articles: “Expert determination: Misconception and misapplication” – AA de Fina; and “An unacceptable wait for acceptance” – Paulina Fishman; and Reports for the following cases: PPK Willoughby v Eighty Eight Construction; Mahony v Queensland Building Services Authority; Valorne Pty Ltd v Building Appeals Board; and Kellett Street Partners Pty Ltd v Pacific Rim Trading Co Pty Ltd.
The latest Part of the Building and Construction Law Journal includes the following: Topic of Interest: “Standard forms of contract in the Australian construction industry: How are they being used?” – John Sharkey AM, Matthew Bell and Wayne Jocic; Article: “Kratos unbound? The new IAMA Arbitration Rules” – Reece Allen and Roger Quick; and Reports for the following cases: Romaldi Constructions Pty Ltd v Adelaide Interior Linings Pty Ltd (No 2); Metier 3 Pty Ltd v Enwerd Pty Ltd; Beyfield Pty Ltd v Northbuild Construction Sunshine Coast Pty Ltd; and Alliance Contracting Pty Ltd v James.
The latest Part of the Building and Construction Law Journal includes the following articles: “Towards the reduction of construction insolvency: Examining the “supporting statement” requirement in New South Wales” – Jeremy Coggins and Wayne Lord; and “What does fairness have to do with it? A critical jurisdictional comparison regarding the notion of “buildability”” – Oliver Spencer Froböse. There is also a Report of the following case: Lend Lease (Millers Point) Pty Ltd v Barangaroo Delivery Authority.
The latest Part of the Building and Construction Law Journal includes the following articles: “The enforcement of international arbitral awards in the Asia-Pacific region – a comparative study of recent cases” – Jaclyn Smith; and “An analysis of dispute review boards and settlement mediation as used in the Australian construction industry” – Stephanie Duffy and James Duffy. Also in this Part are Reports on three cases: Eccles v Koolan Iron Ore Pty Ltd (No 3); Grave v Blazevic Holdings; and Kell & Rigby Holdings Pty Ltd v Lindsay Bennelong Developments Pty Ltd.
The Building & Construction Law Journal started publishing in July 1985, and has now reached its 30th volume. The first issue opened with an Editorial which noted: Building and construction law is a rapidly evolving and very complex field. It was felt timely to produce a publication which would provide an overview of the entire area, keeping informed ...more
The latest Part of the Building and Construction Law Journal includes the following articles: “The old rule, the true rule and contract administration notices in construction” – Andrew Mewing; and “Contractors’ global loss of productivity claims” – David McAndrew. Also in this Part are Reports on two cases: Phontos v Tresedar Pty Ltd; and EGL Management Services v Northern SEQ Distributor-Retailer Authority.
The latest Part of the Building and Construction Law Journal includes the following: “Time bars after Andrews v ANZ” – Andrew P Downie; “Building bridges in the classroom: A view from the academy” – Matthew Bell, Dr Paula Gerber and Dr Phil Evans; Topic of Interest: “Best endeavours and reasonable endeavours: Is there any material difference?” – Elisabeth Moran and Cameron Ross; and Report: CH2M Hill v New South Wales.