WICET ) (the principal). While CMC
succeeded on their claim against WICET at trial, WICET also
succeeded on their counterclaim against CMC. The key issue arose
from the fact that WICET made an all-up offer,
expressed to be under Chapter 9, Part 5 of the
Uniform Civil
Procedure Rules 1999
(
UCPR ), to settle all
claims in the proceeding . The offer was also accompanied by a
covering letter which bore the heading without prejudice
except as to costs .
However, as the offer did not distinguish between the claim and
counterclaim, the trial judge had to establish whether the all-up offer for all claims in the
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
The first stage of the NSW Government s attempts to
streamline State planning policy relating to housing has been
released, with long-awaited planning controls for build-to-rent
(BTR) developments announced by NSW Treasurer, Dominic Perrottet
(Treasurer) and Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, Rob Stokes
(Minister) on 12 February 2021 coming into immediate
effect.
The new State Environmental Planning Policy Amendment
(Build-to-rent Housing) (
Amending SEPP) will not
only establish a definition for BTR for the first time in NSW but
mandate minimum lifespans for BTR developments, allow BTR
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
This recent Queensland Court of Appeal decision
clarifies the effect of a late adjudication and reiterates why it
is important for contractors to frequently review their licensing
position.
Whether lateness of the Adjudicator s decision made it
void.
Whether the costs of the Adjudicator were payable.
Whether the works were excluded from the definition of building
work requiring a licence and whether in the circumstances the
adjudicator had any jurisdiction to decide the builder was entitled
to a progress payment under the Building Industry Fairness
EPA Act
Before looking at the Bandelle decision, s 6.20 of the EPA Act
provides a long-stop limitation period of 10 years for
any loss arising from defective building works, irrespective of
when defects become apparent. Essentially, s 6.20 prevents any
person from bringing civil proceedings for loss or damage arising
from defective work if the works were completed more than 10 years
prior.
The intent of this provision is stop parties bringing actions
for allegedly defective works well after those works were
completed.
Background
On 2 January 2017, the Respondent, Sydney Capitol Hotels
occupied level 5 of a building located on George St, Sydney
(
Building), and had occupied this space since
Bellatrix Exploration Ltd. (Bellatrix) obtained protection under
the
Companies
Creditors Arrangement Act
(Canada) (CCAA). At the time of the CCAA filing, Bellatrix was
party to certain contracts with an energy producer (EP) for the
purchase and sale of natural gas (Contract). Bellatrix sought to
disclaim the Contract and cease delivery of natural gas to the
EP.
The EP argued that the disclaimer notice provided by Bellatrix was
invalid because the Contract constituted an eligible financial
contract (EFC) for the purposes of the CCAA. Under section 32(9) of
the CCAA, a debtor company is not permitted to disclaim contracts
that are EFCs. Pursuant to the express terms of the Contract, the