Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 20 MARCH 2019

Liability apportioned for combustible cladding: VCATs Lacrosse judgment will impact all building professionals

Key issues for industry stakeholders following the first case regarding liability for the installation of combustible cladding.

AustraliaReal Estate and Construction
Lucy Hancock
Lucy Hancock
Thomas Mangan
Thomas Mangan

In November 2014, a 23 storey mixed-use building in Docklands, Melbourne (the Lacrosse Building) caught fire, which spread rapidly up the external face of the building, resulting in a substantive claim for damages in excess of $12 million.

In the first test case regarding liability for the installation of combustible cladding, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) has determined that the use of aluminium composite panels (ACPs) with a highly combustible 100% polyethylene (PE) core to clad the façade of the Lacrosse Building did not comply with the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

An appeal is highly likely and the decision is not binding on Courts in other jurisdictions. Caution must also be taken given the specific facts and contractual clauses that were pertinent to the finding.  Nonetheless, the case, and particularly the underlying rationale for the decision, has wide-ranging implications for industry professionals.  It presents a

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