Case Reports
All contributions regarding the following information are gratefully accepted and should be directed to Angela Vaccari (Editor)
Posted: 21 September 2009
In Baxbex Pty Ltd v Bickle [2009] QSC 194 (28 July 2009), the Supreme Court of Queensland highlighted the technical requirements (in this case, the need to identify the construction work or related goods and services claimed) that must be satisfied in order to successfully serve a payment claim under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld). Held: claim not for construction work or related goods or services under Act as work consisted of administration and supervisory costs.
Other Recent Entries
- Role of architect proprietors when administering a building contract
- Damages for defective work - relevance of plaintiff's future intention
- Court of Appeal considers meaning of “building work” and “building action”…
- High Court rules on whether loss of chance should be extended to medical negligenc…
- Consequential loss - What's in and what's out?
- What amounts to a deed and when is “a deal a deal”?
- View all Case Reports Updates