Liability in negligence for building defects in Ireland, England and Australia: Where statute speaks, must common law be silent?

Deirdre Ní Fhloinn
{"title":"Liability in negligence for building defects in Ireland, England and Australia: Where statute speaks, must common law be silent?","authors":"Deirdre Ní Fhloinn","doi":"10.1108/IJLBE-06-2017-0019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this paper is to consider decisions of the courts of three jurisdictions: Ireland; England and Wales; and Australia, in relation to recovery of economic loss in negligence for building defects and to identify the extent to which the legal environment of each jurisdiction has informed the approach of the courts to the issue.,The approach taken for this purpose is to review the extent of legislative intervention in each jurisdiction to provide measures of protection for home buyers, and whether that intervention has limited the scope of what may be recovered in negligence for defects.,The findings of the research indicate that the retreat from recovery for defects, led by the courts of England and Wales through a series of cases in the 1980s and 1990s, may be regarded in part as a product of their environment, and that legislative intervention in the area of remedies acted as a limitation on the scope of the duties that the courts were prepared to impose.,Although the issue of recovery for building defects in negligence has been covered extensively in the literature and jurisprudence, the cross-referencing of the common law position with the legislative context in the jurisdictions considered provides insights into the approaches of courts and why the position of the courts of England and Wales may not transpose comfortably to other jurisdictions.","PeriodicalId":158465,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law in The Built Environment","volume":"99 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Law in The Built Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLBE-06-2017-0019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to consider decisions of the courts of three jurisdictions: Ireland; England and Wales; and Australia, in relation to recovery of economic loss in negligence for building defects and to identify the extent to which the legal environment of each jurisdiction has informed the approach of the courts to the issue.,The approach taken for this purpose is to review the extent of legislative intervention in each jurisdiction to provide measures of protection for home buyers, and whether that intervention has limited the scope of what may be recovered in negligence for defects.,The findings of the research indicate that the retreat from recovery for defects, led by the courts of England and Wales through a series of cases in the 1980s and 1990s, may be regarded in part as a product of their environment, and that legislative intervention in the area of remedies acted as a limitation on the scope of the duties that the courts were prepared to impose.,Although the issue of recovery for building defects in negligence has been covered extensively in the literature and jurisprudence, the cross-referencing of the common law position with the legislative context in the jurisdictions considered provides insights into the approaches of courts and why the position of the courts of England and Wales may not transpose comfortably to other jurisdictions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
爱尔兰、英国和澳大利亚的建筑缺陷过失责任:成文法起作用的地方,习惯法必须保持沉默吗?
本文的目的是考虑三个司法管辖区的法院的决定:爱尔兰;英格兰和威尔士;和澳大利亚,就建筑缺陷过失造成的经济损失的追讨,以及确定每个司法管辖区的法律环境在多大程度上影响了法院对这一问题的处理方式。为此目的所采取的方法,是检讨每个司法管辖区为保障置业者而进行的立法干预的程度,以及这种干预是否限制了因过失而可获赔偿的范围。研究结果表明,由英格兰和威尔士法院通过20世纪80年代和90年代的一系列案件所引领的对缺陷的追偿的退缩,可以部分地被视为其环境的产物,并且在补救领域的立法干预对法院准备施加的义务范围起了限制作用。虽然建筑过失缺陷的赔偿问题已在文献和法学中广泛涉及,但将普通法立场与所考虑的司法管辖区的立法背景进行交叉参考,可以深入了解法院的做法,以及为什么英格兰和威尔士法院的立场可能无法轻松地转移到其他司法管辖区。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Measures in curbing poor compliance to building control regulation among renovated terrace houses When enforcement fails: Comparative analysis of the legal and planning responses to non-compliant development in two advanced-economy countries Factors influencing land title registration practice in Osun State, Nigeria Liability in negligence for building defects in Ireland, England and Australia: Where statute speaks, must common law be silent? Deregulating planning control over Britain’s housing stock
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1