Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 18 MARCH 2019

Residential Focus: Lacrosse tower decision

Holding Redlich
Holding Redlich
Contributor
Holding Redlich

Holding Redlich

Holding Redlich is a large national commercial firm with offices in Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney,...

View firm profile
Explore more from Holding Redlich

The case shows how a tribunal apportions liability between those involved in the selection and use of building cladding.

AustraliaReal Estate and Construction

Lacrosse tower decision handed down

The Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) recently handed down the eagerly awaited Lacrosse decision,[1] providing guidance as to how a tribunal (or court) may apportion liability between those involved in the selection and use of aluminium composite panels (ACPs). 

The facts 

On or around 14 May 2010, LU Simon (the Builder) entered into a design & construct contract with 675 La Trobe Street Pty Ltd (the Developer) for construction of Lacrosse tower. Warranties of suitability of materials, compliance with the law and fitness for purpose were implied in the design & construct contract pursuant to section 8 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1999 (DBC Act) (similar to the statutory warranties under Part 2C of the Home Building Act 1989 in the NSW context). The design & construct contract also imposed design obligations on LU Simon (relied on by the architects Elenberg Fraser). 

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.

This publication does not deal with every important topic or change in law and is not intended to be relied upon as a substitute for legal or other advice that may be relevant to the reader's specific circumstances. If you have found this publication of interest and would like to know more or wish to obtain legal advice relevant to your circumstances please contact one of the named individuals listed.

See more popular content from