The latest Part of the Building and Construction Law Journal includes the following articles: “The period of limitation in Victorian building actions” – David Levin; “Validity of premature adjudication applications: Challenges in Singapore’s approach” – Sze Hui Jasmine Low; and “Contract is king and time bars that bite: CMA Assets Pty Ltd v John Holland Pty Ltd [No 6]  WASC 217” – David Ulbrick. Also in this Part are Reports on the following cases: Laing O’Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd v Samsung C & T Corporation; Lamio Masonry Services Pty Ltd v TP Projects Pty Ltd; and Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd.
The latest Part of The Queensland Lawyer includes the following article: “Pleading guilty online in Queensland: Efficiency at the expense of justice” – Mikayla Brier-Mills; and the following sections: Administrative law: Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection  HCA 15; Commercial law: A bank’s liability for the advice of its financial planner: Westpac Banking Corp v Jamieson  QCA 50; (2015) 294 FLR 48; Conveyancing and Property law: Compensation or consideration for a statutory right of user?; Criminal law: Particulars in workplace health and safety prosecutions; and Alleging previous convictions in the magistrates court; Health and Guardianship law: Children, consent and the refusal of blood: A recent Queensland case; and Industrial law: Fighting at work – Disentitling and serious and wilful misconduct?. Also in this Part is a Report on FCA v Commissioner of Queensland Police Service (Family law and child welfare, Magistrates) and reviews of the following books: The Law of Misleading or Deceptive Conduct – Colin Lockhart; Native Title in Australia – Richard Barlett; Criminal Law in Queensland and Western Australia: Cases and Commentary – Eric Colvin, Justice John McKechnie and Jodie O’Leary; Law of Confidentiality – G E Dal Pont.
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 Queensland Lawyer includes the following article: “Punch and Jarrod: The pitfalls of Attorney-General (rather than judicial) activism and the need for an Attorney-General Code of Conduct” – Louise Floyd. Also in this Part are the following sections: Conveyancing and Property Law: “Buyer’s hardship precludes specific performance”; Criminal Law: “Bullying a juror”. There are also six book reviews and Reports of the following cases: Sunba v Hartnett Lawyers and Nominal Defendant v Star Motorcycles Pty Ltd.
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 Queensland Lawyer publishes an article by Dr Bill Dixon analysing the prospects of a successful application under s 180 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), seeking to identify the factors underpinning successful applications, the obstacles that an applicant may encounter and the considerations that have guided the courts when considering the associated issues of compensation and costs. Also in this Part are the following sections: Conveyancing and Property Law: The cost of changing your mind!; Criminal Law: Impermissible submissions on sentence; Health and Guardianship Law: Posthumous conception in South Australia: The case continues in Re H, AE (No 3)  SASC 196; Industrial Law: Racial taunts and bullying and harassment in the workplace; and Tort Law: Hospital’s failure to detain patient was necessary condition of the harm. There is also a Report on the case Moores v Pearce and three book reviews.
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.
The latest Part of the Building and Construction Law Journal includes the following articles: “Kable and the validity of s 15 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW)” – Jean M Hamilton-Smith; and “Monetary value: The “least worst” proxy for vulnerability in regulation of construction contracting?” – Matthew Bell and Ravindu Goonawardene. There is also a book review and Reports for the following cases: St Hilliers Construction Pty Ltd v Fitzpatrick Investments Pty Ltd; Thiess Pty Ltd v MCC Mining (Western Australia) Pty Ltd; and Phillips v Tobias Partners Pty Ltd.