Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 05 JUNE 2008

Environmental Systems Pty Ltd -v- Peerless Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] VSCA 26

The importance of exclusion clauses as they relate to "consequential loss" has been reinforced by the recent decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in Environmental Systems Pty Ltd -v- Peerless Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] VSCA 26.

AustraliaReal Estate and Construction

Peter Lamont - Solicitor

The importance of exclusion clauses as they relate to "consequential loss" has been reinforced by the recent decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in Environmental Systems Pty Ltd -v- Peerless Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] VSCA 26. The question for organisations to consider is whether or not existing contractual frameworks adequately define consequential loss.

The facts

Environmental Systems entered into a contract with Peerless Holdings to provide Peerless with a regenerative thermal oxidiser (RTO). The RTO did not perform as specified under the agreement and Peerless had to obtain a replacement.

Peerless brought proceedings against Environmental Systems for the following:

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from