*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 or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AST).<\/p>\n
The latest issue of the Building and Construction Law Journal<\/em> (Volume 35 Part 6) contains the following material:<\/p>\n EDITORIAL<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Michael Christie SC<\/em><\/p>\n BOOK REVIEW<\/a><\/p>\n Timing is Everything: Security of Payment, Set-off and (In)solvency<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Professor Helen Anderson and Dr Matthew Bell<\/p>\n Security of payment laws are meant to ensure cash keeps flowing down the chain of contractors within the building and construction industry to avoid unnecessary insolvency. However, the enforceability of security of payment obligations by companies in liquidation is currently in a state of flux because of differing judicial approaches. Recent NSW legislation and a Victorian Court of Appeal decision favour denying the payment claims of claimants in liquidation based on the possibility of an insolvency set-off in the hands of the respondent. This article argues against that approach. The policy drivers in favour of protecting set-off can be countered by equally strong arguments to support the claimant\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s right to be paid regardless of its liquidation. Allowing respondents to avoid their security of payment obligations where the claimant is in liquidation provides a perverse incentive to respondents to precipitate that liquidation. We further argue that courts should not be party to this behaviour by staying payment of the respondent\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s obligation while they establish their set-off or wait for the claimant\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s liquidation to eventuate.<\/p>\n REPORTS<\/p>\n For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: BCL Vol 35 No 6 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n
\n
Articles<\/h3>\n
\n