*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
NB: <\/strong>Please note that Legal Online will be decommissioned on 31 December 2013<\/b>. From now on, all updates will include links for Westlaw AU only<\/b> (with the exception of the Journals available on Checkpoint, which will have an extra PDF). For further information, please click here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n The latest issue of the Building and Construction Law Journal <\/em>(Volume 29 Part 6) contains the following material:<\/p>\n EDITORIAL<\/a><\/p>\n Kable and the validity of s 15 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) <\/i><\/b><\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Jean M Hamilton-Smith<\/p>\n Security of payment enactments have succeeded in achieving the legislative goal of ensuring a fast-paced mechanism for the recovery of progress payments in the construction industry. The legislation, in some States, is in equal measure effective and controversial. This article will address one aspect of that wider controversy. Section 15 of the New South Wales Act creates a cause of action in debt, where the claimant need only prove that it issued an unmet payment claim under the Act to become entitled to payment. The respondent to that cause of action is expressly not entitled to bring any cross-claim, or raise any defence in relation to matters arising under the construction contract. In this article it is argued, based upon the reasoning in Kable, that the warping of the judicial process, combined with the determinative nature of a s 15 judgment, is so different from the traditional judicial process as to risk offending the principle in Kable.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n Monetary value: The \u00e2\u20ac\u0153least worst\u00e2\u20ac\u009d proxy for vulnerability in regulation of construction contracting?<\/i><\/b><\/a> <\/i><\/b>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Matthew Bell and Ravindu Goonawardene<\/p>\n Legislative intervention into parties\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 contracting arrangements in the construction industry often has as its aim the protection of parties which are \u00e2\u20ac\u0153vulnerable\u00e2\u20ac\u009d in the sense that they are unable reasonably to protect their interests through negotiation of appropriate terms in the contract. However, the mechanisms by which this is done often appear somewhat arbitrary in their design and application. Therefore, this article seeks to examine whether it is possible to identify an optimal basis for such intervention. It focuses upon the current situation in Australia in respect of two key areas of construction activity where the legislature has seen fit to intervene into parties\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 freedom to contract on the grounds of protection of the vulnerable: the residential building sector (protection of owners as consumers) and security of payment (protection of subcontractors and suppliers). The latter is investigated in the context of the ongoing debate over proposals towards harmonisation of the various State-based legislation in Australia and, specifically, the reforms to the New South Wales version of that legislation introduced in 2013.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n BOOK REVIEW<\/a><\/p>\n REPORTS<\/a><\/p>\n <\/strong>For the pdf version of the table of contents, click here: WAU – BCL Vol 29 Pt 6 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n
Articles<\/h3>\n
Sections<\/h3>\n
\n
\n