*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 38 Part 1) contains the following material:<\/p>\n EDITORIAL<\/a><\/p>\n Click here to access on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n Contract Damages for Defective Construction Work: An Unsolvable Puzzle?<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Matthew Bell<\/p>\n This article considers how the common law decides upon the appropriate measure of damages where there is a breach of contract resulting in defective construction work. It focuses upon recent case law from South Australia offering a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153menu\u00e2\u20ac\u009d of factors which can be taken into account in deciding whether damages based upon the cost of rectification of the work ought to be awarded. This \u00e2\u20ac\u0153menu\u00e2\u20ac\u009d is by no means unproblematic; it sits in tension with High Court authority which leaves unresolved the more nuanced aspects of how parties\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 performance interests are to be upheld by way of damages awards. Hence, the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153puzzle\u00e2\u20ac\u009d aspect of the article\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s title. The article concludes that the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153menu\u00e2\u20ac\u009d is worthy of consideration outside of South Australia, but should include an overriding factor that rectification will be deemed reasonable to the extent that the defect threatens the health and safety of occupants of the building.<\/p>\n Click here to access article on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n Quiet Enjoyment versus Public Interest: The Application of Private Nuisance to Wind Farms<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Trevor Thomas, James Ye and Wayne Jocic<\/p>\n The right to quiet enjoyment of land is a core protection of the common law. Renewable energy projects like wind farms serve the public interest. Both statements are largely uncontroversial. The difficulty lies in how the law should resolve conflicts between the two goods of quiet enjoyment and the public interest. A classic recent illustration is Uren v Bald Hills Wind Farm Pty Ltd<\/em>, in which a noisy wind farm led to a successful private nuisance claim. The core elements of a private nuisance claim are well settled. Despite this, the case reveals controversies about the onus of proof in showing that activities were reasonable; the operation of the statutory authority defence; and the relevance of planning permits and the public interest.<\/p>\n Click here to access article on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n REPORTS<\/p>\n Click here to access on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n Click here to access on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n Click here to access on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n For the PDF version of the table of contents, Westlaw AU – BCL Vol 38 No 1 Contents<\/a> or New Westlaw Australia – BCL Vol 38 No 1 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on New Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\n\n
Articles<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n