*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 40 Part 3) contains the following material:<\/p>\n EDITORIAL \u2013 General Editor: Michael Christie SC<\/em><\/p>\n BOOK REVIEW<\/p>\n LADs Making Mischief at Home and Abroad: Should the Penalties Doctrine Apply to Whether Low-Value Liquidated Damages Are an Exclusive Remedy for Delay?<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u2013 Matthew Bell and Trevor Thomas<\/p>\n This article examines an under-considered aspect of the \u201cmischief\u201d which characterises the principles and practice of liquidated damages law in Australia and across the common law world. This is whether low-value liquidated damages \u2013 especially, those where the parties have specified a value of \u201cnil\u201d or \u201c$1\u201d \u2013 override the non-defaulting party\u2019s right to recover general damages for its loss in breach of contract. The article regards the case law on this point \u2013 illustrated by the recent New South Wales Court of Appeal decision in Carbone v Fowler Homes Pty Ltd <\/em>\u2013 as tending to promote uncertainty due to its roots in contract interpretation principles. As a way of alleviating this uncertainty, the article poses the question: if the doctrine of penalties can intervene when it comes to a maximum rate of liquidated damages, why should it not also act to regulate a minimum rate of liquidated damages?<\/p>\n Pafburn and Beyond: (Almost) Half a Decade of the Design and Building Practitioners <\/strong>Act 2020 (NSW)<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u2013 Declan Byrne and Ajay Sivanathan<\/p>\n Five years after the enactment of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 <\/em>(NSW), defect claims based on breach of the duty of care set out in s 37(1) have become ubiquitous in the courts of New South Wales. With an increasing number of significant decisions being handed down, including the High Court\u2019s recent decision Pafburn Pty Ltd v The Owners \u2013 Strata Plan No 84674<\/em>, the Courts are grappling with several complex issues associated with this legislation.<\/p>\n REPORTS<\/p>\n For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: New Westlaw Australia – BCL Vol 40 No 3 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on New Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
Articles<\/h3>\n
\n