Meet the Co-chairs - TAGLAW

Rintoul, David
Clarkslegal LLP

Mead, Patrick
Carter Newell


By: Luke Preston, Partner and Kyle Trattler, Senior Associate

Two recent decisions have clarified the circumstances in which a court will be bound to refer to arbitration a dispute pending before it, pursuant to s 8 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld) and its interstate counterparts.

To read the full article click here, or visit


The two authorities of National Oil Well (UK) Ltd v Davy Offshore Ltd and Woodside Petroleum Development Pty Ltd v H & RE & W Pty Ltd are conflicting in relation to the effect of a ‘waiver of subrogation’ clause in a contractors’ all risk policy of insurance.

In the National Oilwell case, the English Court considered that the waiver clause was confined to claims for losses which are insured for the benefit of the party claimed against. However, in the Woodside Petroleum case, the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, in declining to follow National Oilwell on the point, held that there was no basis for limiting the ambit of the waiver clause to the cover provided, ie the court rejected the argument that the waiver was commensurate with cover.

To read the full article click here, or visit

By: David Rodighiero, Partner and Michael Elliott, Associate

In November 2015, we updated readers on the decision of Laing O’Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd v Samsung C & T Corporation1 which provided insight into the willingness of the courts to quash determinations of adjudicators made under the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) (Act).

Those parties have recently been back before the court to dispute the entitlement of Samsung C & T Corporation (Samsung) to call on a security provided by Laing O’Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd (LORAC), worth $7.5 million.

To read the full article click here, or visit

Contact: Gregory P. Cafouros; Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP (Indianapolis, Indiana, USA)

Architects and Engineers benefit from a rule in construction known as The Economic Loss Doctrine, limiting a design professional’s exposure in construction claims. The players in a construction project dispute are required to follow the “chain of contracts” that the owner, construction manager, general contractor, subcontractors and design professionals signed before beginning their work.

Read more: All Puffed Up…Proposals Can Bite Back

In the Q4 2015 edition of Piling Canada Kirk A. Vilks Olson (Stuart) Dominion Construction Ltd. v. Structal Heavy Steel, made by Manitoba Court of Appeal that has now been reviewed and upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). While the SCC upheld the decision, they also provided some additional comments that will help guide contractors who wish to avoid providing double security for a subcontractor’s lien.

To read the full article, please click here