Search

The High Court's decision in Timber Creek is the first to consider the assessment of compensation under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) for acts which extinguish native title rights and interests. The decision establishes a number of propositions fundamental to the operation of the compensation provisions of the Act. The decision leaves for future resolution a range of other equally important issues. This article identifies and examines some of those issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses Australian legal claims involving construction law, defective buildings, and the tort of negligence economic loss, and it mentions the potential return of an exclusionary rule of evidence in the country, as well as litigation involving issues such as a reasonable care standard.

Vulnerability has emerged in Australia as a relevant consideration in determining the existence of a duty of care to avoid pure economic loss. However, opinions vary on what factors establish vulnerability. One question which has confounded the courts and legal commentators alike is whether a plaintiff's capacity to protect himself or herself via contract, but failure to do so, should disentitle the plaintiff from being able to obtain relief for pure economic loss in tort on the basis that he or she was not vulnerable. This article considers the current state of authority on this question in Australia. It argues that a plaintiff's capacity to contract for a warranty of protection should be irrelevant in assessing whether or not a plaintiff is vulnerable and that more broadly, the absence of vulnerability is not a valid reason for negating duty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the judicial decision of the High Court of Australia in the case of Brookfield Multiplex Ltd. v. Owners Corporation Strata Plan 61288, in which the Court addressed the integrity of laws offering protection to builders' against the duty of care and liability for defective work and avoid pure economic loss. It discusses the significance of torts negligence for economic or financial loss.

The article focuses on the need for clarity on the law dealing with subsequent purchasers and pure economic loss stemming from property defects caused by builder negligence. Topics include the common law regarding loss due to negligence in Great Britain and Australia, negligent misrepresentation, and the duty of care.

The article discusses the British Mercantile Court's ruling in the 2012 case AXA Insurance UK PLC v. Thermonex Limited which deals with the all risks policies of construction contractors, defective premises, and the liabilities of insurers. The legal obligations of subcontractors are addressed, along with claims for pure economic loss and indemnification. A motion for summary judgment is also mentioned, as well as the alleged contract and tort duties of the defendant.