On 24 August 2023, the County Court of Victoria handed down its decision in Owners Corporation I Plan No PS 707553K and Ors v Shangri-La Construction Pty Ltd (ACN 130 534 244) and Anor [2023] VCC 1473.

Following the well documented spike in mid and post-pandemic costs, driven largely by inflation and global supply shortages, many industries have seen the cost of doing business increase significantly. For many of these industries, in order to remain viable, these additional costs have been (at least in part) handed on to the consumer. Unfortunately for those in the domestic building industry in Victoria, this option is not always available.

Purchasing or building a new home is often said to be the largest financial commitment an individual or a couple will make in their lifetime. People will take on substantial mortgages in order to build their dream homes or investment properties. Therefore, it is extremely important that you ensure the legal goalposts are set from the beginning and understood by all parties, before signing on the dotted line.

The National Construction Code 2022 (NCC 2022) is undergoing some significant changes by introducing new requirements that will alter the construction of most houses and apartments. This will likely result in additional costs to home owners.

On 8 October 2021, the Federal Court of Australia determined its first instance decision in the second Australian business interruption insurance test case. The decision in Swiss Re International Se v LCA Marrickville Pty Limited [2021] FCA 1206 (Second Test Case) provided legal guidance in determining whether business interruption insurance policies provide cover to businesses for losses related to COVID-19.

It is undeniable that the COVID-19 pandemic has presented unique and challenging issues for Australian businesses, causing long-term disruption to business. Adding further complexity is that, historically, the insurance industry would not provide relief to businesses affected by a pandemic.

Harwood Andrews has started the 2021/22 financial year by announcing the appointment of Ali Erskine and Ben Broadhead as Principal. Both Ali and Ben are part of the firm’s dispute resolution practice.

In Owners Corporation 1 Plan No PS543073S & ors v Eastrise Constructions Pty Ltd [2019] VCAT 1639 (Eastrise), the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has handed down an important decision in the context of expiring actions against builders pursuant to the Building Act 1995 (Vic) (Building Act).

Harwood Andrews is delighted to announce that Paul Gray and Kate Morris have been promoted to Principal in their Geelong and Melbourne offices respectively.

In October, the High Court handed down its judgment in the case of Peter Mann & Anor v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd [2019] HCA 32 (Paterson), clarifying principles and providing constraints in respect of a claim on the basis of quantum meruit.

On 29 April 2015, the Victorian Supreme Court handed down its judgment in Burbank Australia Pty Ltd v Owners Corporation PS 447493 [2015] VSC 160, which concerned an appeal from a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, in relation to allegations of defective building works in the common property of the ‘Waterford Towers’ apartment building built by Burbank in the Melbourne suburb of Maribyrnong.

The Federal Court has heralded a green light for competition in the discount pharmacy market in handing down its decision in a misleading and deceptive conduct case between the owners of Chemist Warehouse (Applicants) against Direct Chemist Outlet (Respondents). In this case, Harwood Andrews successfully defended the Respondents and also made out the Respondents counterclaim, invalidating the Applicants trademark “Who is? Australia’s Cheapest Chemist”. 

Section 588FF(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) allows liquidators to apply to a court for orders in relation to voidable transactions.  Liquidators commonly seek to use this provision to “claw back” unfair preferences to particular creditors, but it also covers claims in respect of uncommercial transactions, unfair loans and unreasonable director-related transactions.

On 17 March 2015, Justice Middleton of the Federal Court handed down his decision in Verrocchi and Gance –v- Direct Chemist Outlet Pty Ltd  (ACN 123 831 210) and Ian Tauman.

In tough economic times, maintaining cash flow to your business can become more difficult. The Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 can assist suppliers, contractors and subcontractors in the building industry to get paid more quickly and avoid expensive disputes.

A new section 45 under the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 enables a party to a domestic building contract to refer a dispute to the Victorian Building Authority.

A new section 45 under the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 enables a party to a domestic building contract to refer a dispute to the Victorian Building Authority.

The previous uncertainty surrounding the length of time in which home owners could bring a claim against builders has now been clarified by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

When obtaining finance, directors of family businesses will often be required to provide guarantees.  

Importantly, and as the discussion below indicates, directors may become unwittingly bound by guarantees they did not know they had provided.

Therefore it is important that prospective guarantors fully understand when a guarantee will be taken to have been provided, as well as understanding that executing a contract in their directorial capacity may, if the agreement so provides, expose them to personal liability under a guarantee.    

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has long adopted the position that the ten year period for which an action can brought against a builder as stated in Section 134 (S134) of the Building Act 1993 (the Act), is intended to replace the period of six years provided by the Limitations of Actions Act 1958. This position has not been without its critics.

The recent County Court decision of Brirek Industries –v- McKenzie Group Consulting, adopts the alternative position. That is, any cause of action will be statute barred upon the expiration of the six year period under the Limitations of Actions Act 1958.