*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 39 Part 5) contains the following material:<\/p>\n EDITORIAL \u2013 Editor: Michael Christie SC<\/em><\/p>\n How Will the New Unfair Contract Terms Regime Affect Construction Contracts? <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u2013 Jey Nandacumaran and Cameron Inglis<\/p>\n The new unfair contract terms (UCT) regime, which came into effect through reforms to the Australian Consumer Law in late 2023, marked the beginning of a new era. As the reforms significantly expanded the reach of the UCT law, many parties to standard form building contracts may now be subject to \u201cAustralian norms of fairness\u201d. This will impact the Australian construction industry, as some terms common to building contracts may be declared unfair and rendered void, causing project disruption and exposing parties to multimillion dollar penalties. Even if not declared unfair, contracting parties may seek to avail themselves of the regime if a particular term is thought to be unfair or if its enforcement causes detriment. This article explores how the UCT reforms will impact the Australian construction industry, how it may influence the behaviour and risk allocation of contracting parties large and small, and whether it is beneficial for the industry or not.<\/p>\n Concurrent Delay and the Prevention <\/strong><\/em>Principle \u2013 Resolving the Conflicting Lines of Authority <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u2013 Ian Thorpe<\/p>\n It is submitted that a preventative act by a principal that causes delay concurrent with a contractor\u2019s delay will engage the prevention principle and set the time for completion at large, unless the contract provides for an extension of time for that concurrent preventative act. There is conflicting authority on this subject \u2013 the courts found otherwise in North Midland Building Ltd v Cyden Homes Ltd <\/em>and Turner Corp Ltd (in liq) v Co-ordinated Industries Pty Ltd<\/em>, but this submission is consistent with Wells v Army & Navy Co-operative Society <\/em>and Perini Pacific Ltd v Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District <\/em>and the characterisation of the prevention principle in Roberts v The Bury Improvement Commissioners<\/em>, Dodd v Churton<\/em>, Peak Construction (Liverpool) Ltd v McKinney Foundations Ltd<\/em>, Trollope & Colls Ltd v North West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board <\/em>and Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v DDI Group Pty Ltd<\/em>.<\/p>\n For Better or for Worse? An Analysis of \u201cBetterment\u201d in the Assessment of Damages in Construction Claims <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u2013 Amanda Jade Staninovski<\/p>\n The traditional principle underpinning the measure of damages is the cost of rectification of the works which are necessary to achieve conformity with the plans and specifications. However, if the remedial works go beyond the scope and specifications originally stipulated by the contract, and thereby placing a plaintiff in a better position than it had originally bargained for, a defendant may seek to reduce damages based on this \u201cbetterment\u201d enjoyed by a plaintiff. While the concept of betterment is clear, the legal principles underpinning betterment, and entitlement to this reduction in damages, are not so prescriptive. This article aims to provide a comprehensive review of the principles of betterment in Australia and its application to practical situations experienced in construction-related legal disputes.<\/p>\n REPORTS<\/p>\n For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: New Westlaw Australia – BCL Vol 39 No 5 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on New Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\n\n
Articles<\/h3>\n
\n