In MTECC News edition 25.05, the author identified an issue with s 34D Subdivision Act 1998, in particular, an amendment made in 2021 that prevented owners corporations easily amending plans of subdivision where there were a minority of dissenting members. The Victorian Parliament is seeking to correct this issue in the Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2026. The

Mandatory domestic building insurance, successors in title, and the temporal limits of cover: Victorian Building Authority v Fall-Armytage [2026] VSCA 32 (special leave application pending)   In summary, the Court of Appeal (Niall CJ, McLeish and Whelan JJA) has construed the domestic building insurance (DBI) policy required by the Domestic Building Insurance Ministerial Order (2003) (MO) made under s

Full Court’s narrowing of legal professional privilege at common law: Medibank v McClure & Mastercard v ACCC   In Medibank Private Limited v McClure [2026] FCAFC 38, the Full Court dismissed an appeal against a denial of Medibank’s claim for privilege (at common law) over three expert reports prepared by Deloitte. The expert reports were procured in response to a

The recent decision in Kronstruct Pty Ltd v UAG Toorak Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 213 highlights the continuing importance of carefully drafted security provisions in construction contracts, while also arriving at a time of significant legislative reform to Victoria’s security of payment regime. In Kronstruct, M Osborne J granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the principal

Calling Upon Contractual Security: The New Notice Requirement and the Option to Pay Cash to Avoid Reputational Risk Unconditional bank guarantees, payable on demand, are a common form of security provided by contractors under administered construction contracts. A dispute over whether the principal is entitled to call on the guarantee will not usually prevent the

This case involved an appeal by homeowners (Owner) from a judgment of the County Court of Victoria concerning a major domestic building contract (Contract) with the respondent builder (Ozzie). In a joint judgment, the Court, constituted by McLeish, Lyons JJA and Nichols AJA revisited, affirmed and explained Cardona v Brown,[1] including the identification of repudiation and its