*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0or\u00c2\u00a0contact us on 1300 304 195\u00c2\u00a0(Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980\u00c2\u00a0(international customers) during business hours\u00c2\u00a0(Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AEST).<\/p>\n The latest issue of the\u00c2\u00a0Australian Law Journal<\/em> (Volume 91 Part 12) contains the following material:<\/p>\n CURRENT ISSUES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Justice Fran\u00c3\u00a7ois Kunc <\/strong><\/p>\n LETTERS TO THE EDITOR <\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editors: Robert Angyal SC and Brendan Edgeworth <\/strong><\/p>\n PERSONALIA<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Clare Langford <\/strong><\/p>\n Commonwealth\u00c2\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n New South Wales\u00c2\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Queensland <\/strong><\/p>\n ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Dr Damien J Cremean <\/strong><\/p>\n RECENT CASES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Ruth C A Higgins SC <\/strong><\/p>\n Paciocco in the High Court: Penalties and Late Payment Fees<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00c2\u00a0\u00e2\u20ac\u201c\u00c2\u00a0<\/strong><\/em>J G H Stumbles<\/p>\n In upholding the bank\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s late payment fee in Paciocco<\/em>, the High Court recognised that in certain cases, the validity of an impugned penalty clause may now be determined by reference to damage to legitimate, commercial or other interests over and above compensable damage ordinarily recoverable in an action for breach of contract. In doing so, the Court followed some of the reasoning of the UK Supreme Court in the recent Cavendish and ParkingEye litigation. This article analyses the Court\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s judgment, its implications for the penalty doctrine and the ongoing relevance of Lord Dunedin\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s well known propositions in the Dunlop case.<\/p>\n Australian Rules: A Survey of the High Court of Australia on Construction Law 1965-2016<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c\u00c2\u00a0<\/strong><\/em>Professor John Sharkey AM<\/p>\n Since Federation the High Court has provided the major judicial guidance for Australian construction lawyers notwithstanding that for most of that time the Privy Council remained the ultimate court of appeal. One might reasonably have expected to see an enhancement of the role with the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council. However, the subsequent period has seen a continuing decline in the instances of the High Court identifying an issue of principle in construction law that warranted the granting of special leave. Moreover, where the Court has granted special leave it has largely been in cases involving non-contractual relationships. In analysing the contribution of the High Court to Australian construction law over the last half century in both substantive and quantitative terms this article examines why the decline occurred and submits a view as to what the 21st century might hold for the High Court and this field of the law.<\/p>\n For the PDF\u00c2\u00a0version of the table of contents, click here: ALJ Vol 91 No 12 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Articles<\/b><\/h3>\n