Intellectual property (IP) is a key asset in today’s construction industry, helping businesses safeguard their competitive edge in an increasingly tech-driven landscape. As construction evolves with the introduction of high-tech products, materials, and digital platforms, understanding how to protect new and innovative ideas is crucial. This blog post will look at the Federal Court Case Carlisle Homes Pty Ltd v Tick Homes Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 973 (‘Carlisle Homes’) as it demonstrates the critical role of copyright in the construction sector.
In a pivotal decision for the construction industry, the High Court has ruled that the statutory duty of care owed by developers and head contractors under the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) (DBPA) is non-delegable and not apportionable. This ruling has significant implications for developers, contractors, and their insurers.
The Consumer and Planning Legislation Amendment (Housing Statement Reform) Bill 2024 (Vic), which was introduced into the Victorian Parliament on November 27, 2024, will bring significant changes across multiple sectors, including Owners Corporations (OCs).
The recent ruling in Owners Corporation v Buckley has sparked an important debate: Should fee disputes involving Owners Corporations be resolved in the Magistrates’ Court or at VCAT? This decision carries significant implications for Owners Corporations seeking to recover debts owed by lot owners.
In 2021, two landmark decisions were handed down by Judge Burchell (Uber Builders and Impressa Constructions), that held that due to significant delays at VCAT arising from resourcing issues that manifested during the COVID 19 pandemic, VCAT was unable to fulfil its function with respect to the efficient and timely management of domestic building disputes.
A recent noteworthy case, Victorian Building Authority v May 21 Pty Ltd and Ors [2024] VSCA 150 (VBA v May 21 Pty Ltd) is the subject of this article given its significant implications on the calculation of the amount of the building permit levy payable by developers under the Building Act 1993 (Vic) (the Act).
There is a difference between a letter of demand and statutory payment claim as explained below. What is a letter of demand. A letter of demand is sent by a creditor to a debtor demanding payment of the debt. It is usually the final step taken before the commencement of a legal proceeding.
The decision in early March 2024 of Justice Woodward in Plunkett v Portier Pacific [2024] VCAT 205 (Plunkett) has far-reaching implications for VCAT’s jurisdiction in relation to domestic building disputes.
If you have encountered water flow onto your property causing damage, injury or economic loss, then you may be considering pursuing a claim in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). However, it is unclear currently whether there are time limitations on raising a claim.
The passing of the Building Legislation Amendment (Domestic Building Insurance New Offences) Act 2024 (Vic) (the Amendment) has introduced new penalties for Builders who fail to obtain Domestic Builder Insurance (DBI), hence, strengthening consumer protection in the construction industry. The changes are relevant for any Builder engaged in a major domestic building contract.
All Australian states and territories introduced legislative security payment legislation to address poor payment practices in the construction sector. Victorian security of payment law is established by the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Act).
In Victoria, the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic) (Act) prescribes the various information that shall be disclosed about a property in a Vendor's Statement when selling a property. A failure to comply with the Act may result in a purchaser being able to rescind a Contract of Sale.
The County Court of Victoria handed down its decision of Owners Corporation 1 Plan No PS 707553K and Ors v Shangri-La Construction Pty Ltd (ACN 130 534 244) and Anor [2023] VCC 1473 on 24 August 2023. This case is the first decision relating to a claim of the State of Victoria against a builder for costs to remove combustible cladding. The 2020 amendments to the Building Act 1993 (Vic) (‘the Act’) allow the State of Victoria to make such claims.
In the recent decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in Thurin v Krongold Constructions [2022] VSCA 226 (Thurin v Krongold), the majority held that the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine domestic building disputes involving the interpretation or application of federal legislation.
A recent decision in the ongoing VCAT matter of Owners Corporation PS623721 v Shangri- La Construction Pty Ltd [2022] VCAT 1499 may significantly impact how future claims and defences are pleaded in multi-party building disputes with respect to defective works.
The recent Supreme Court decision in Piastrino v Seascape Constructions Pty Ltd [2022] VSC 202 (Piastrino) provided clarification on the application of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic) (SOP Act) in relation to a mix-use development involving both domestic building work and commercial work.
Appointments of a State Building Surveyor (SBS) and a Building Monitor (BM) are two welcome amendments to the Building Act 1993 (Act) made by the Hon Richard Wynne, former Minister of Planning and Minister of Housing.
On 8 June 2022, the Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal (VSCA)confirmed the commencement date of limitation periods under the Building Act 1993 (Vic) (Building Act). Where multiple occupancy permits have been issued for a building project, this decision has significant industry impacts.
There are two types of combustible cladding that present a risk to building occupants, these are aluminium composite panels and expanded polystyrene. The risk is that in an event of a fire, these materials can enhance the speed at which a fire spreads, presenting a threat to residents and those in the immediate vicinity.
VCAT has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine domestic building disputes between a builder and an owner or a builder and a subcontractor in the state of Victoria. However, the exclusive jurisdiction of VCAT has recently been questioned in light of the significant delays parties are experiencing at VCAT.
