HOW TO SHOP

1 Login or create new account.
2 Review your order.
3 Payment & FREE shipment

If you still have problems, please let us know, by sending an email to support@website.com . Thank you!

SHOWROOM HOURS

Mon-Fri 9:00AM - 6:00AM
Sat - 9:00AM-5:00PM
Sundays by appointment only!
MTECC NEWS

MTECC publishes a fortnightly newsletter, with a short article by one of our members, together with recent news. Please add your details below so we can add you to our distribution list. The latest MTECC news and previous versions are set out below.

MTECC publishes a fortnightly newsletter, with a short article by one of our members, together with recent news. Please add your details below so we can add you to our distribution list. The latest MTECC news and previous versions are set out below.

Current and previous newsletters

Leeda Projects Pty Ltd v Zeng [2020] VSCA 192 (Tate, Kaye and McLeish JJA) – A case of no direct pecuniary loss presents challenges for the assessment  of unliquidated damages for delay ||| MTECC News Edition 20.16

Leeda Projects Pty Ltd v Zeng [2020] VSCA 192 (Tate, Kaye and McLeish JJA) – A case of no direct pecuniary loss presents challenges for the assessment  of unliquidated damages for delay Zeng purchased the 87th floor of the Eureka Tower as a shell for $5.8 m for use as a private art gallery and occasional residence.  She engaged

Read More

Looking into the future – The County Court rejects a claim under SOPA for work to be performed in the future in Rudyard Pty Ltd v ASEA1 Pty Ltd [2019] VCC 1995 * ||| MTECC News 20.15

Looking into the future – The County Court rejects a claim under SOPA for work to be performed in the future in Rudyard Pty Ltd v ASEA1 Pty Ltd [2019] VCC 1995 The proceeding concerned an application pursuant to section 16(4) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic) (Act) for an order

Read More

When is a clause “not applicable” – the Victorian Supreme Court considers the enforceability of an arbitration agreement failing to nominate a process for appointing an arbitrator in Gemcan Constructions v Westbourne Grammar School [2020] VSC 429 || MTECC News 20.14

In Gemcan Constructions v Westbourne Grammar School [2020] VSC 429 the Victorian Supreme Court held that specifying that provisions of a construction contract nominating an arbitrator, rules for arbitration and an appointing authority were “not applicable” did not render an arbitration agreement unenforceable.  Background The respondent, Westbourne Grammar School (Westbourne), engaged the applicant, Gemcan Constructions (Gemcan), to

Read More

Coming to terms with the absence of a formal written contract – the NSW Court of Appeal clarifies relevant contractual principles in C & V Engineering Pty Ltd v Hamilton & Marino Builders Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 103 ||| MTECC News 20.13

The NSW Court of Appeal decision in C & V Engineering Pty Ltd v Hamilton & Marino Builders Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 103 illustrates legal principles that will be applied by Courts where parties enter into an informal contractual arrangement following an exchange of emails.   The respondent (builder) was constructing 55 units in Mascot and retained the

Read More

The costs of adjudication – the Victorian Supreme Court considers its power to issue an indemnity certificate for adjudicator error in Radman v Open Plan [2020] VSC 318 ||| MTECC News 20.12

This recent decision of Digby J confirms that a party to an application for review of an adjudication determination under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payments Act 2002 (SOPA) may be entitled to a certificate of indemnity pursuant to the Appeal Costs Act 1998 (ACA). The grant of a certificate under the ACA gives a party the

Read More

Adjudication, lies, and enforcement of determinations: the England and Wales High Court considers the effect of fraud on a payment adjudication in PBS Energo A.S. v Bester Generacion UK Limited [2020] EWCA Civ 404  ||| MTECC News 20.11

Under Australian security of payment legislation, an adjudication determination based on a claimant’s fraud is voidable, rather than void. Fraud cannot be raised in opposition to an application for an order, although it is grounds for judicial review of the determination.   In the United Kingdom, adjudication is also used to resolve payment issues, under

Read More
1 2 3 4 8

Subscribe to our Newsletter

TOP

Subscribe to Download

Please provide your details to download.