Costs of essential safety measures and s 251 of the Building Act

Whether a landlord can pass on the costs of complying with the Building Act 1993 has been the source of a significant debate over the last year or so.

A recent article of mine on this issue has been published in the Law Institute Journal here.

In summary, the article suggests that:

  1. the better view is that landlords are able to recover from tenants the costs of compliance with the Building Act 1993 (Vic), including the costs of essential safety measures, at least where the landlord has incurred the cost itself;  and
  2. in light of recent consternation on the issue, either legislative amendment or a test case in the Supreme Court is required.

Some background to the debate is available here, here, here, here and here.

About Sam Hopper

Sam is a property and insolvency barrister.

View all posts by Sam Hopper

Subscribe

Subscribe to our RSS feed and social profiles to receive updates.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Small Business Commissioner makes application for advisory opinion on the effect of s 251 of the Building Act | Sam Hopper Barrister - June 25, 2014

    […] background to the issue about s 251 of the Building Act, see an earlier post here and the links within that […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: