The effectiveness of time bar clauses following the high court in decision in Andrews v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group

P. Davenport, M. Brand
{"title":"The effectiveness of time bar clauses following the high court in decision in Andrews v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group","authors":"P. Davenport, M. Brand","doi":"10.1108/IJLBE-12-2012-0029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose – In Australia, compulsory rapid adjudication under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (or the equivalent legislation another Australian State or Territory) is a common way that payment claims under commercial construction contracts are decided. Construction contracts often contain penalty clauses. In particular, time bar clauses have been used to impose a penalty upon claimants and are frequently raised by a respondent as a reason for withholding payment. In the recent case of Andrews v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group [2012] HCA 30 (“the Andrews case”), decided by the high court of Australia, the court has described how Australian courts must deal with penal provisions in contracts. The purpose of this paper is to consider the effectiveness of time bar clauses in the light of the penalty doctrine enunciated in the Andrews case.Design/methodology/approach – A “black‐letter” approach is adopted to analyse and explain the effectiveness of time bar clau...","PeriodicalId":158465,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law in The Built Environment","volume":"101 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Law in The Built Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLBE-12-2012-0029","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose – In Australia, compulsory rapid adjudication under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (or the equivalent legislation another Australian State or Territory) is a common way that payment claims under commercial construction contracts are decided. Construction contracts often contain penalty clauses. In particular, time bar clauses have been used to impose a penalty upon claimants and are frequently raised by a respondent as a reason for withholding payment. In the recent case of Andrews v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group [2012] HCA 30 (“the Andrews case”), decided by the high court of Australia, the court has described how Australian courts must deal with penal provisions in contracts. The purpose of this paper is to consider the effectiveness of time bar clauses in the light of the penalty doctrine enunciated in the Andrews case.Design/methodology/approach – A “black‐letter” approach is adopted to analyse and explain the effectiveness of time bar clau...
高等法院对安德鲁斯诉澳大利亚和新西兰银行集团案判决后时间限制条款的效力
目的-在澳大利亚,根据《1999年建筑和建筑业付款安全法案》(NSW)(或澳大利亚其他州或地区的同等立法),强制快速裁决是商业建筑合同下付款索赔的一种常见方式。建筑合同通常包含处罚条款。特别是,时间限制条款已被用来对索赔人施加惩罚,并经常被答辩人提出作为扣留付款的理由。在最近由澳大利亚高等法院判决的安德鲁斯诉澳大利亚和新西兰银行集团案[2012]HCA 30(“安德鲁斯案”)中,法院描述了澳大利亚法院必须如何处理合同中的刑事条款。本文的目的是根据安德鲁斯案中所阐述的刑罚原则来考虑时间限制条款的有效性。设计/方法论/方法-采用“黑字”方法来分析和解释时间条规则的有效性…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信