David Jackson, ‘The First Limb of Barnes v Addy: A Taxonomy in Tatters’

… Not long after the High Court’s decision in Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (‘Farah’), I asked Professor Lee what he thought about it. He said this: ‘Well, David, after all these years of reading cases I think that cases where plaintiffs don’t win generally don’t decide very much about the law’. Then he said: ‘But I don’t know, what do you think?’ I was taken aback. At that time, I was full of the joys of the High Court’s decision. First, I thought it had rescued indefeasibility from the scrap heap, particularly so far as bank mortgages were concerned. Secondly, whilst I now agree with Professor Keith Mason’s point of view that the High Court’s treatment of the New South Wales Court of Appeal was intemperate, I was not unhappy then that the High Court had stemmed the tide of those who were intent on bending first limb Barnes v Addy liability into a restitutionary framework. That was seven years ago. This lecture represents my response now to Professor Lee’s question —‘What do you think?’ …. (more)

David Jackson, ‘The First Limb of Barnes v Addy: A Taxonomy in Tatters’, QUT Law Review Volume 15, Issue 1, 4 (2015).

First posted 2015-12-05 09:28:18

Leave a Reply