Litigation

When to complain about defective domestic building work

The Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (Act) provides key requirements and time limitations for dealing with or rectifying defective domestic building work.  The recent decision of MacFarlane v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2019] QCAT 408 (MacFarlane) illustrates the impact of failing to comply with the time frames as they apply to defective building work. [Read more…]

Interpreting release clauses in settlement agreements

Using a settlement agreement to extinguish a legal claim is common practice among most lawyers involved in litigation. These agreements have the benefit of providing certainty to parties and avoiding the costs and risks associated with litigation.  However, the decision in IBM Australia Ltd v State of Queensland [2015] QSC 342 (IBM v Queensland) is a reminder that lawyers need to exercise caution when drafting settlement agreements, and in particular compromise terms such as release clauses. [Read more…]

QBCC Home Warranty Insurance Claims – part 3

Part 5 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Act) establishes a statutory insurance scheme, the purpose of which is in certain situations to provide basic assistance to consumers of residential construction work for loss associated with work that is defective or incomplete.

As part of the building process, the builder pays a premium to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) to insure the residential construction work, the amount of the premium being included as part of the contract price and paid to the QBCC before the residential construction work commences.  However, many consumers of residential construction work are uncertain about the exclusions under the QBCC Home Warranty Insurance scheme. [Read more…]

Terminating a domestic building contract

Entering into a domestic building work contract is like getting married – if both parties do not act in good faith the ensuing divorce can be very messy.  While Part 5 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Act) establishes a statutory insurance scheme, the purpose of which is in certain situations to provide assistance to consumers of domestic building work, earlier articles by Dundas Lawyers have illustrated the pitfalls associated with trying to get out of a domestic building work marriage. [Read more…]

Claiming delay due to COVID-19? Think again.

In the current pandemic parties to legal proceedings may be tempted to apply for an adjournment or further time, citing COVID-19 as the reason for the delay.  Certainly the Federal Court of Australia has been quick to respond to the pandemic by changing its procedures and has even conducted entire trials using Microsoft Teams.  This article discusses the circumstances where COVID-19 has been used as justification for a delay in proceeding and the Court’s view on granting stays for this reason. [Read more…]

Evidence from the Wayback Machine

The utility of evidence relating to the existence of websites on the internet and their contents sourced from the Wayback Machine is increasingly being considered by Australian Courts.   The question is whether or not the Courts will accept reports from the Wayback Machine in practice and if so what will they allow? [Read more…]

Building disputes and arbitration clauses

Building dispute litigation before a Court or tribunal, like any other form of commercial litigation, can be a stressful, time-consuming and costly process.  Commercial building contracts commonly include alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as arbitration, as an option to formal litigation in anticipation it will more efficiently resolve any dispute. [Read more…]

Particulars – their importance in civil litigation

In civil litigation, the term ‘particulars’ is frequently used.  The term particulars stems from the ordinary meaning of the noun, ‘particular,’ that being, ‘a detail’.  Despite this rather simple meaning, what exactly a particular is seems to be a subject of some confusion even amongst the legal profession.  This confusion is likely caused by the blurred line between pleaded facts and particulars. [Read more…]

$750k damages for fake online reviews

The recent case of Cheng v Lok [2020] SASC 14  (Cheng v Lok) should serve as a warning about the potential severe consequences of posting fake reviews out of spite or to harm a competitor.   This was clear in the recent case of Cheng v Lok [2020] SASC 14 where the Supreme Court of South Australia awarded $A750,000 in damages to a lawyer whose business was defamed through fake and negative online. [Read more…]

Aussie Court orders Google to unmask reviewer

Online reviews are crucial to most business’ online presence.  While some reviewers openly share their identity along with their comments, many choose to remain anonymous.  In the case of false, misleading or defamatory online reviews, this can create a host of issues for businesses seeking to remove the review or commence legal proceedings against a reviewer.  This was evident in the recent case of Kabbabe v Google LLC [2020] FCA 126. [Read more…]

Send this to a friend