From: Ben
McFarlane <ben.mcfarlane@law.ox.ac.uk>
Sent: Wednesday
26 March 2025 09:20
To: Jason W
Neyers; dcheifetz; obligations
Subject: Re:
Western Australia tort law - property damage - diminution in value of property
With apologies for some advance advertising, chapters in a
forthcoming edited collection, Private
Law and Building Safety, include discussion of the complex law on claims by
those affected by defective buildings.
The chapters, by an international set of authors, including many
list members, look at a number of different jurisdictions and consider the
impact of recent legislation, such as the UK's Building Safety Act 2022. The
book will be out in July, but can be ordered now, and there is a 20% discount
using the code GLR BD8.
Ben McFarlane
From: Jason W Neyers
<jneyers@uwo.ca>
Sent: 24 March 2025 10:17
To: dcheifetz <dcheifetz@gmail.com>;
obligations <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: Re: Western Australia tort law - property damage -
diminution in value of property
Brookfield
Multiplex Ltd v Owners Corporation Strata Plan 61288 & Anor ([2014] HCA
36)?
From: David Cheifetz
<dcheifetz@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 2:04:24 AM
To: obligations <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: Western Australia tort law - property damage - diminution
in value of property
|
Some people who received this
message don't often get email from dcheifetz@gmail.com.
Learn why this is important |
Dear All
A plea for assistance from a voice from the past --
If I might impose on those of you with knowledge of current
WA law -
I has been suggested to me that WA doesn't recognize any
claim based on negligence for diminution in value of land or building by a
subsequent owner of the property. There is no contract involved.
I haven't been able to find a case specifically on point in
Austlii, nor a reference to an article. I suspect that's my failing not
Austlii's.
The suggestion sounds a bit antediluvian and implicitly at
odds with Bryan v Maloney (where that was the described loss) albeit the
issue there was the existence of a duty of care at all.
Neil Foster has been good enough to advise there's nothing
in Luntz's Damages and to send me the relevant pages of Luntz & Hambly,
Torts, where (to me at least) ss 9.3.5-7
imply the cause of action exists.
Off list should you prefer - dcheifetz@gmail.com
Best regards and thank you in advance,
David
|
|
|
|
|
You're receiving this message because you're a member of the
obligations group from The University of Western Ontario. To take part in
this conversation, reply all to this message. |
|
|
|
|