PURE ECONOMIC LOSS RELATED DISPUTES : DIFFERENT APPROACHES IN COMMON LAW JURISDICTION IN ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

Abstract

The construction industry is prone to disputes resulting from defective buildings. One of the most discussed legal topics nowadays is the issue of pure economic loss and whether or not affected parties should be entitled to recover their losses. This dissertation attempts to look into an empirical development of decisions regarding pure economic loss claims in Asia Pacific nations whose jurisdictions have long been influenced by the decisions of the English courts. The aim is to examine selected jurisdictions that have departed from the English approach and to find any established methods or formula to deal with such claims. A literature review and case studies have been conducted as my chosen research methodologies. The definition of pure economic loss and the approaches that have been taken by English courts are first discussed. The comparison with positions in Hong Kong, Malaysia, Australia and Singapore is then made through investigating recent decisions of the courts. The author also goes into studying current regulation that gives solid policy considerations in this area of law. This dissertation shows that the situation of pure economic loss is still unsettled in most of the studied jurisdictions. Hong Kong and Malaysia have not followed the English Courts and used their own regulations and considerations to decide the issue. However, they have not reached consensus as to whether pure economic loss is recoverable. Meanwhile, Australian and Singaporean courts have shown constant liberal departure from the House of Lords’ decisions by conceiving their own tests in conjunction with exercising policy considerations when handling pure economic loss claims. This dissertation has achieved its core objectives of exploring the current development in the recovery of pure economic loss, especially those related to the construction industry.