Introduction

The property development industry has become more astute in recent years.  This has resulted in property developers putting in place corporate structures that are intended to protect their assets.  This often results in owners corporations being unable to recover compensation from developers to cover the costs to fix defects that affect their buildings.  So what can be done to avoid that problem?

In this article we take a look at a recent case in which an owners corporation represented by JS Mueller & Co succeeded in convincing the Supreme Court to make a freezing order against a developer to prevent the developer dissipating its assets to ensure that the developer would have sufficient assets to pay any compensation the owners corporation was awarded by the Court to cover the cost to fix building defects.

The Facts

There is a mixed use building in Milsons Point, Sydney containing 125 residential lots and 2 commercial lots.  The building was completed in July 2021.  Since August 2021, the developer has been selling the residential lots in the ordinary course.  The developer has now sold 121 of the 125 residential lots.  The developer still owns 4 of the residential lots. They are effectively the developer’s only assets.

The building contains defects.  The owners corporation has sued the developer in the Supreme Court for damages arising out of those defects.  In the case, the owners corporation has obtained evidence from a quantity surveyor to the effect that the estimated cost to rectify the defects is in the order of $10.6 million.

The Problem

The owners corporation became concerned that the developer’s only assets were the four residential lots that it owned in the building and that once those lots were sold, the sale proceeds would be dissipated and the developer would have no assets left to pay any damages the owners corporation was awarded by the Court.  That would have rendered to the continuation of the court case against the developer pointless.

Application for Freezing Order

In November 2024 the owners corporation applied to the Supreme Court for a freezing order to be made against the developer.  The purpose of that order was to prevent the developer from disposing of its assets up to the value of $10.6 million being the amount of the owners corporation’s claim.  The developer resisted the application for the freezing order and argued that there was no basis for the Court to make that order.

The Decision

On 6 February 2025 the Supreme Court published its decision in which it concluded that it was appropriate for a freezing order to be made against the developer generally in the terms sought by the owners corporation.  The Court was persuaded that there was a danger that any damages that were awarded to the owners corporation would be wholly or partially unsatisfied because the developer might dispose of its assets once it sells the remaining 4 lots in the building that it still owns.  The Court concluded that it was likely that the developer would sell those 4 lots in the future and that it would distribute the profit generated by the sale of the those lots either by way of dividend or as a loan to other members of its corporate group.  This was consistent with the way in which the developer had dealt with the proceeds of sale of other lots it had sold in the development.

Conclusion

The case shows that an owners corporation that is concerned that a developer against whom it has made a claim for damages arising from building defects can take steps to protect its interests and ensure that the developer does not dissipate its assets to avoid having to pay damages to the owners corporation.  The case shows that the Supreme Court will make freezing orders against developers in appropriate circumstances to safeguard the position of owners corporations who are at risk of being left with nothing if the developers of their strata schemes are able to deal with their assets without restraint.

Case citation: The Owners – Strata Plan No. 102081 v Aqualand Constructions Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 31

Adrian Mueller I BCOM LLB FACCAL I Partner

Since 2002 Adrian has specialised almost exclusively in the area of strata law. His knowledge of, and experience in strata law is second to none. He is the youngest person to have been admitted as a Fellow of the ACSL, the peak body for strata lawyers in Australia. Profile I Linked

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

In a significant victory for owners corporations across Australia, the High Court has ruled that builders and developers cannot escape liability for negligent construction work. The landmark decision in Pafburn Pty Limited v The Owners – Strata Plan No 84674 affirms that developers and head contractors bear a non-delegable duty to ensure the quality of construction, even if the work is outsourced to subcontractors. This ruling has far-reaching implications for the building industry and provides greater protection for property owners.

On 11 December ds2024, the High Court of Australia handed down its judgment in the case of Pafburn Pty Limited v The Owners – Strata Plan No 84674. The key findings of the decision are as follows:

Key Findings

1. Appeal Dismissed: The appeal by Pafburn Pty Limited and Madarina against the NSW Court of Appeal decision in favour of the owners corporation was dismissed with costs. This means that the decision is in favour of the owners corporation.
2. Non-Delegable Duty: The court held that the duty imposed by Section 37(1) of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) (DBPA) is a non-delegable duty. This means that the developer and the head building contractor cannot limit their liability by delegating construction work to others.
3. Proportionate Liability: The court found that the proportionate liability scheme under Part 4 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (CLA) does not apply to claims for breach of the duty under Section 37 of the DBPA. The liability for breach of this duty is personal and cannot be apportioned among concurrent wrongdoers.
4. Vicarious Liability: The court clarified that Section 5Q of the CLA, which deals with liability based on non-delegable duties, applies to the duty under Section 37(1) of the DBPA. This means that the developer and the head building contractor are treated as vicariously liable for the negligence of those to whom they delegated construction work.
5. Economic Loss: The court confirmed that the owners corporation is entitled to claim damages for economic loss caused by defects in the building arising from the construction work, as per Section 37(1) of the DBPA.
6. Legislative Intent: The court emphasised that the DBPA was enacted to address public concerns about building defects and to ensure that owners have effective redress for economic loss caused by such defects. The provisions of the DBPA are intended to impose individual and collective responsibility on building practitioners for their work.
7. Outcome: The matter was remitted to hearing to determine whether the list response pleading can be maintained against all alleged wrongdoers, specifically whether they can be characterised as persons who carry out construction work under the DBPA.

These findings reinforce the non-delegable nature of the duty of care imposed on developers and head contractors under the DBPA and clarify the interaction between the DBPA and the CLA. This is good news for an owners corporation because it means that a builder and developer cannot attempt to limit or apportion their liability by arguing that the work was done by someone else, in other words, their duty cannot be delegated to a subcontractor (non-delegable duty).

An owners corporation can still take direct action against subcontractors (if necessary), although the owners corporation must be able to establish that the subcontractors carried out construction work within the meaning of the DBPA and breached the duty in section 37 of DBPA. We also note that the decision does not prevent cross claims by the builder and developer.

Complex Area of Law

This is a complex area where we have significant experience please contact us if you have a similar case.

Helen Amanatiadis I LLB LLM I Lawyer

Helen is admitted as a practitioner of the Supreme Court of NSW and High Court of Australia. Highly qualified Helen has over 25 years of experience in commercial dispute resolution, with a primary focus on building and construction and strata law. Profile I Linked

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

Introduction

It is an unfortunate reality that many strata apartment buildings contain defects.  Many of those defects are widespread or systemic defects that affect most or all of the lots.  But how far does an owners corporation have to go to prove the existence of systemic defects?  Does the owners corporation have to organise for its experts to inspect each and every lot to prove that those systemic defects exist in each lot?  A recent Supreme Court case provides the answer to that question.

The Case

There is a strata complex containing 45 townhouses in Tweek Heads South.  The complex was built in about 2018 and 2019.  There are defects in the complex.

In 2021, the owners corporation of the complex sued the builder for damages to (among other things) cover the cost to rectify defects throughout the complex.  In the case, the owners corporation claimed that several defects were systemic and present in numerous townhouses.  One of those defects related to waterproofing defects at the outer edge of balconies above garage doors of many townhouses.

The parties’ experts agreed that the beam which spans the outer edge of the balconies on two of the townhouses suffered moisture damage due to the same waterproofing defect on the balconies of those townhouses.  However, the owners corporation’s expert did not inspect any of the other townhouses or carry out any investigations to prove that those defects existed in them.  The builder denied that those same defects existed in the other townhouses and claimed that the owners corporation had not proved its case in that regard.

Proving the Existence of Systemic Defects

The Court agreed with the builder and concluded that the owners corporation had not proven, on the balance of probabilities, that the waterproofing defects and moisture damage to the beams on the outer edge of the balconies existed in any of the other townhouses.  In other words, the Court concluded that the owners corporation had not proven that those defects were systemic.

The Court relied heavily on an earlier decision in The Owners – Strata Plan No. 62930 v Kell & Rigby Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 612.  In that case, the owners corporation of a block of 14 units argued that no water stops had been installed by the builder in the bathrooms of all 14 units.  The owners corporation’s expert evidence only proved that there were no water stops in the bathrooms of three units.  But the owners corporation claimed that the lack of water stops was a systemic defect present in all of the bathrooms.

The Court held that it could not be inferred from the evidence that established that there were no water stops in three bathrooms that waterproofing work was incorrectly performed in other units and observed that the fact that the waterproofing contractor defectively performed work in a small number of units did not warrant a conclusion that it did so everywhere else.  Importantly, the Court concluded that the burden of proof lay on the owners corporation and that it had chosen to carry out limited destructive testing in three bathrooms only when there was no reason why it could not had done so in all of the units.

In the case involving the townhouse complex in Tweed Head South, the Supreme Court followed the reasoning in Kell & Rigby and concluded that there was insufficient evidence available to support the inference that the balcony waterproofing defect in two townhouses provided a basis for finding that the same defect existed in all 26 townhouses which have front first floor balconies.

Importantly, the Court held that it could not rely on the opinion of the owners corporation’s expert that the defect was systemic due to similar construction details being present in all townhouses because it was not known whether the waterproofing defects that had been identified in two of the townhouses were caused by faulty design or shoddy workmanship.  For all of these reasons, the Court rejected the owners corporation’s claim that the defect on the outer edge of the balconies was a systemic one that affected all such balconies and instead only accepted that the defect existed in two of the balconies that had actually been inspected and tested by the owners corporation’s experts.

Conclusion

The case provides a salutary lesson for owners corporations who wish to pursue a claim against a builder, developer or subcontractor for systemic defects.  Typically, the owners corporation will need to go the extra mile and pay its expert to inspect more than just a handful of lots to ensure that adequate testing and investigations are undertaken to enable the expert to form an opinion that will allow the owners corporation to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defect in question is widespread and systemic.  In some cases, this will require the expert to inspect and undertake testing and investigations in all of the lots, which in a large strata building, can be expensive.  But that is the unfortunate price an owners corporation must sometimes pay in order to succeed in a claim with respect to systemic defects.

Case: The Owners – Strata Plan 99960 v SPS Building Contractors Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 687

Adrian Mueller I BCOM LLB FACCAL I Partner

Since 2002 Adrian has specialised almost exclusively in the area of strata law. His knowledge of, and experience in strata law is second to none. He is the youngest person to have been admitted as a Fellow of the ACSL, the peak body for strata lawyers in Australia. Profile I Linked

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

Adding Further Building Defects to an Existing Claim

On 17 April 2023, the New South Wales Court of Appeal in the case of Parkview Constructions Pty Ltd v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 90018 (Parkview), confirmed that an owners corporation can add new defects to an existing claim if the statutory warranty period in the Home Building Act 1989 (HBA) has not expired.

Supreme Court Amends Building Defects Statement of Claim

In the Parkview case, in the Supreme Court, the owners corporation sought to amend its Statement of Claim to add new defects. The Supreme Court granted permission to the owners corporation to add new defects to its existing claim.  The new defects that were added were not manifest when the owners corporation-initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court. Parkview appealed against the decision of the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeal.

Court of Appeal Win for Owners Corporation

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Supreme Court by confirming that the owners corporation was entitled to add new defects to its existing claim and the addition was not a new cause of action but part of a single cause of action being a breach by the builder of the statutory warranties under the HBA.

Parkview argued that the addition of new defects introduced a “new” cause of action, and those new causes of action were not the same as the existing cause of action that was on foot. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. It held that in a conventional case for breach of contract, there is a single cause of action.  That cause of action is complete when a defective structure is provided irrespective of the number of ways in which those defects have manifested themselves.  The Court of Appeal said that even though the HBA has created inroads into common law principles, however, those changes brought by the HBA do not alter the nature of the owners corporation’s claim.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeal said that a successor in title like an owners corporation sues a builder or a developer for statutory warranties under the HBA. The proceeding is based upon a breach of a single contract.  An amendment does nothing more than introduce further departures from the building contract that the builder and the developer had promised and that does not give rise to a new cause of action because the cause of action remains one, that is for a breach of the same contract.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeal held that the owners corporation’s amendments seeking to add new defects did not introduce a new cause of action and so the owners corporation was entitled to add them to its existing claim.

A Victory for Owners Corporations in NSW

This confirmation from the Court of Appeal is a great victory for owners corporations in NSW and it reconfirms the willingness of the judiciary to protect owners in strata schemes wherever it may be necessary.

Faiyaaz Shafiq I LLB GDLP I Lawyer

A highly experienced and respected, results driven Litigation Lawyer specialising in the areas of strata litigation, building & construction, commercial litigation, debt recovery, personal and company insolvency. Profile I Linked

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

The NSW Government has announced a win for strata managers and owners corporations who have buildings under 6 years old.

You now have an avenue to pursue the rectification of any common property for major building defects, subject to eligibility.

Here we share the following:

• Key information
• What is Project Intervene?
• Who is Eligible?
• What is classified as common property?
• What is a serious defect?
• How do I register for ‘Project Intervene’?
• Related information

For specific information visit NSW Government ‘Project Intervene‘

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

The NSW Government is working to increase confidence in the NSW building industry by creating a new foundation for construction, by looking at improvement of laws and consumers/workers protection.

How to Have Your Say!

To have your say on the proposed building laws reform in NSW you can:

• Complete the all-in-one survey which allows you to skip through all topics to those that are of interest to you or;
• If you are only interested in a single topic, you may complete one or more of the 7 individual survey topics
• You may also make a submission which allows you to give detailed feedback or respond directly to the questions in the regulatory impact statements

Deadline for Your Feedback

To provide feedback please Friday 25 November 2022.

For more information, please refer to the NSW Government here.

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

The Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) has announced the following in relation to the recent launch of the National Construction Code (NCC) 2022:

• As of 1 May 2023, NCC 2022 will be adopted with a transition period until 1 October 2023
• The transition period is for the modern homes provisions for energy efficiency, condensation mitigation and liveable (accessible) housing
• While the transition dates from 1 May to 1 October 2023 are in place NCC 2019 will remain in force
• Following 1 October 2023, NCC 2022 is to be adopted

How Different is NCC 2022?

• Consistency improvements have been implemented across all volumes with a new structure and number convention
• It is more web accessible with a significantly improved user experience and reorganised code’s
• As part of the transition old clause numbers will be listed to the right of documents
• You will be able to save a PDF version directly to your device or purchase a printed copy of NCC 2022
• You will no longer need to sign in to NCC Online but you will need to register to ensure you stay up to date with notifications

For more information the National Building Code 2022 is available here NCC 2022

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

Tenants, Building Defects, NCAT and Rent Relief

In a recent case, a property manager failed to inform a landlord of defects in the common property of a strata building and take any steps to investigate issues that a tenant had complained about.

The tenant applied to NCAT for a rent reduction as the landlord had breached their obligation to keep the rented premises in a reasonable state of repair as water leaked into the premises. The tenant was successful.

Who Could be Liable?

If a tenant claims rent relief from NCAT due to defects in a strata building, it’s important to note that NCAT could deem that it is the responsibility of the:

• Landlord who could lose rent (or worse) if they do nothing;
• Property manager if they fail to fix defects in the premises that they are authorised to repair following a tenant’s complaint in a timely manner;
• Property manager if they have not advised the landlord of defects (where they are not authorised organise repairs) following a tenant’s complaint;
• Owners corporation who could also be held liable for a landlord’s loss of rent.

A Timely Reminder for Managing Agents!

Ensure your professional indemnity insurance is current;

• Ensure your professional indemnity insurance is current
• Obtain landlord consent on a minimum amount for repair works which can be dealt with without the landlord’s approval;
• Allocate sufficient resources to attend to repair requests in a timely manner to avoid issues which could lead to court proceedings;
• Request that any common property defects are promptly repaired by the owners corporation;
• Ensure that the relevant strata by-laws for the apartment block are up to date to minimise your risk

Here we share some cases…

• https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/18261da0208ae3ceaf03173b
• http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWDC/2019/9.html

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

Building Defects – Who is Liable?

Can the director of a building company that is responsible for the construction of a new strata building be held personally liable for defects in the building?

The Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (Act) was introduced in 2020 and provides that a duty of care is owed by “a person who carries out construction work” to an owners corporation to avoid defects in the construction of the building. But who exactly is classified as “a person who carries out construction work”?

Is “a person who carries out construction work” limited to the entity that was contracted to do the work such as the builder or does it also include all persons involved in completing the project such as a supervisor, project manager and even the director of the builder’s company or the developer?

Personal Liability of Project Manager

A recent decision by the Supreme Court of NSW has found that the husband of a director of a building company was personally liable for defective building works done by the builder under the Act because he acted as the project manager and supervisor of the builder: see Goodwin Street Developments Pty Ltd atf Jesmond Unit Trust v DSD Builders Pty Ltd (in liq) [2022] NSWSC 624.

In this case, the builder was placed into liquidation and the developer brought proceedings against Mr Roberts the husband of a director of the builder.  According to the Court, Mr Roberts was a project manager of the builder, supervising construction works for the project. Therefore, Mr Roberts was found to be “a person who carried out construction work” under the Act and was found liable for the defects.

Liability of Developer

In another recent Supreme Court case, an owners corporation sued the builder and developer for damages arising from defects.

The Court found, among other things, that a developer could be held liable for defects under the Act as a person who carried out construction work.

The Court also said that under the Act, a person could be liable for defects if they could (but did not necessarily) have control of the building works: see The Owners – Strata Plan No 84674 v Pafburn Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 659.

Conclusion

These cases have far reaching consequences for directors, supervisors, project managers, developers and sub-contractors involved in construction work who all could be liable to owners corporations for defects under the Act, even for work done up to 10 years ago (as the Act is retrospective). However, for those persons to be liable, it must be proven that they have had or could have had some control over the building works.

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

Who Pays the Compensation?

When an owners corporation is ordered to compensate an owner, who pays that compensation?  The owners corporation, right?  A recent decision by NCAT’s Appeal Panel produced a surprising answer to that question.

Introduction

An owners corporation has a statutory duty to properly maintain and keep in good repair the common property.  This duty arises under section 106 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015.  If an owners corporation does not repair defects in the common property, it will breach that duty.  Where that occurs, a lot owner who suffers monetary loss arising from that breach is able to sue the owners corporation to recover that loss.

Previous Cases

There have been a number of cases where both NCAT and the Supreme Court have ordered owners corporations to pay compensation to owners to cover their losses arising from failures to repair defects in common property that typically allow water to leak into and cause damage to lots. In those cases, owners have been awarded compensation for rental loss, alternate accommodation expenses, cleaning costs, repair costs, experts’ fees and legal costs.  But when an owners corporation is ordered to compensate an owner for those losses, who ends up paying that compensation? The answer to that question should be straightforward, right? Not so.

NCAT Case

On 30 November 2021, NCAT’s Appeal Panel handed down its decision in SP 74698 v Jacinta Investments Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 387.  In that case, an owner had sued an owners corporation for (among other things) compensation to cover the owner’s losses that arose from an owners corporation’s breach of its duty to repair common property.  The owner was successful and was awarded over $250,000.00 in compensation.  NCAT also ordered that the compensation be paid through a contribution that was levied on all owners except the successful owner who won the case.  The owners corporation appealed against that aspect of NCAT’s decision (and others). NCAT’s Appeal Panel upheld the decision.  The Appeal Panel concluded that it would be unjust for the successful owner to have to contribute towards the payment of the compensation the owners corporation had been ordered to pay the owner.  This meant that the owners corporation was required to levy a contribution on all owners (apart from the successful owner) to raise the funds needed to pay the compensation it was ordered to pay.  The owners corporation was also ordered to pay the owner’s costs of the case and those costs were determined to be payable through a contribution to be levied on all of the other owners.

The Wash Up

The Jacinta Investments case provides an example of one of the rare circumstances in which an owners corporation is able impose a differential levy on some but not all owners.  The case also highlights that individual owners can be made liable to pay compensation that an owners corporation is ordered to pay to another owner to cover any damage or loss the owner suffers where the owners corporation does not fulfill its responsibility to repair common property.

The Future

The Jacinta Investments case has broader implications.  It opens the door for owners to argue in legal proceedings in NCAT that they should not be required to contribute to the payment of costs an owners corporation will incur repairing common property or consequential damage to lot property.  So, for example, where an owner sues an owners corporation in NCAT for an order to force the owners corporation to repair common property defects and water damage to the owner’s lot caused by those defects, the owner may now be able to obtain an order from NCAT excusing the owner from having to contribute to a levy that is raised to pay for those repairs.  Stay tuned because there is likely to be another chapter to this story.

Author I Adrian Mueller, Partner I B.Com LLB FACCAL.

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

Follow Us

Linkedin


Twitter


Envelope