security of payment
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 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 three interesting articles. The first article is by Brian Mason and discusses the constitutional validity of the arrangements for recovering unpaid security of payment adjudication determinations as a judgment debt. The second article comes from Rohan Havelock, who analyses the availability of liquidated damages following determination of the construction contract. The final article is by Michelle Backstrom and considers the binding nature of certificates in the context of traditional construction contract arrangements and also considers the implications for more complex contracts like those entered into to facilitate public private partnerships.
The June 2011 issue of the Building and Construction Law Journal contains two interesting articles on the use of Scott Schedules in litigation and a comparison between the Australian security of payment legislation and the US construction lien laws. There is also a Book Review and three Reports.