Introduction

When a dispute over defective building work turns ugly, the owner is sometimes tempted to refuse the builder the opportunity of returning to rectify the defects.  There are risks in this course.  This update considers a recent NSW Supreme Court decision on the topic. [1]

If an owner engages a new builder to carry out rectification work, the new builder will be cautious on at least three accounts:

  • The new builder will be concerned that the old builder was incompetent, and therefore be cautious as to work that has been covered over. The caution might extend to requiring destructive testing, or to rebuilding work that was perhaps adequate in the first instance.
  • The new builder may also have concerns as to whether the owner is applying an exacting standard to the work, and whether they also will fail to measure up.
  • The third vexed issue is that of warranty: which of the builders will be liable if a defect later emerges in the construction?

Anecdotal evidence indicates it is not unusual for the new builder to charge around 30% above the cost the first builder says it would have incurred in rectifying and completing the work.

In general, owners should be very cautious when considering excluding the builder from the opportunity of rectifying defective work.

Recently, the New South Wales Supreme Court again looked at this issue.

The background story

An apartment block was completed at Ettalong by the Builder in late 2013.  The Owners Corporation (“the Owners”) noticed defects in February 2014 and engaged a licensed builder to inspect and report. In November 2014 a complaint was lodged with the NSW Department of Fair Trading.

In late January 2015, a subcontractor of the Builder began remedial work at the cost of the Builder, with the stated goal of completing all the remedial work by May 2015.  In March 2015, the site was inspected, and 30 remaining defects were identified. On a further inspection in May 2015, it was found that 19 of the 30 items had not been rectified.

The subcontractor performing the remedial work continued but when another inspection occurred in August 2015, even more defects were found, including that the ceiling spaces were not compliant with fire safety requirements.

The Owners gave the Builder a deadline of 18 August 2015 for a response, explaining how the rest of the defects would be fixed.  The deadline expired without a response.  On 19 August 2015, the Owners engaged lawyers. On 20 August 2015, the Builder wrote saying it was “organising for the defects to be rectified”. By then, the Owners had decided to exclude the Builder from the site.

Litigation commences

The dispute then entered litigation, with both parties engaging legal teams. Approximately 2 years after proceedings were commenced, on the first day of trial in Court, the Judge decided to refer the dispute to an expert determination, reserving the issue of legal costs for a later time.

Both the Owners and the Builder brought evidence from independent expert consultants to the expert determination. A conclave of the consultants resulted in the Owners reducing their claim to $1.442 million. The Builder’s consultant conceded defects to the value of $318k. The expert preferred the Owners’ evidence and awarded the Owners $1.282 million.

The only issue left for the Court was whether the Owners should get their legal costs paid by the Builder. The Builder said it should not have to pay legal costs because it had been continuing to offer to come back and rectify the work, but the Owners had refused it access to the site. The Owners said the Builder had been too slow and unwilling to rectify all of the defects.

The legal principles

In reaching its decision, the Court set out the following legal principles that are to be applied in these situations:

  • the overarching principle is that an owner is not entitled to recover losses attributable to its own unreasonable conduct;
  • in cases involving building contracts, the owner is required to give the builder an opportunity to minimise any damages the builder must pay by rectifying the defects, except where its refusal to give the builder that opportunity is reasonable or where the builder has repudiated the contract by refusing to conduct any repairs;
  • the question of what is reasonable depends on all the circumstances of the particular case – one relevant factor is what attempts the builder has made to repair the defects in the past and whether, in the light of the builder’s conduct, the owner has reasonably lost confidence in the willingness and ability of the builder to do the work;
  • it is for the builder to prove that the owner has acted unreasonably – it is not for the owner to prove that it acted reasonably; and
  • once a builder puts in issue the reasonableness of the owner’s conduct, all circumstances relevant to an objective assessment of the owner’s position become examinable.

In relation to this last point, the owner is not limited to reliance on facts or circumstances known at the time. The owner may also rely on facts which come to its attention afterwards that shed light on the builder’s conduct at the time.

Conduct and decision

In the saga that unfolded after the Builder was excluded from the site, the Builder’s lawyers took an aggressive approach when writing to the Owners’ lawyers.  In their letters they used phrases such as “blatant and false assertion as to the schedule of defective works” and described the claims as “appear to be a bogus claim”.

The Judge accepted the Owners had lost confidence in the Builder.  The Judge said that Builder had not, since their exclusion from the site, proposed a “workable scope of works”.  The Judge criticised the hyperbolic language used by the Builder’s lawyers describing it as “unnecessarily aggressive”.  The Judge noted the eventual proposal by the builder fell well short of work found by the expert to be required.

Ultimately, the Judge found that the Owners had not acted unreasonably in deciding to have the rectification works performed by another party.  On that basis, the Owners were awarded their costs.

Conclusion

The overarching principle that the builder has the right to rectify its own defective work remains unchallenged, even though in this instance the builder lost that right.

The owner must be shown by the builder to have acted unreasonably in making the decision to engage a new builder.

The builder’s efforts to rectify are a relevant consideration as is whether the owner has reasonably lost confidence in the willingness and ability of the builder.

Courts continue to frown upon lawyers who adopt an unnecessarily aggressive approach.  All letters written by lawyers should be viewed through the prism of the judge eventually presiding over a trial, even though all parties fervently hope to avoid the possibility.  An early letter describing an ultimately successful claim as “bogus” or “frivolous” would no doubt be cause for regret.

 

[1] The Owners – Strata Plan 89041 v Galyan Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 619

Read the article in BuildLaw Issue 37

About the Author
Tom Grace

Partner

Construction & Engineering, Commerical Dispute Resolution,
Environment and Planning, Administrative Law


Fenwick Elliott Grace

Australian law firm based in Adelaide and Darwin, specialising in
construction, energy and engineering law

 

“Route to the decision” – Scottish court rejects challenge to adjudicator’s decision that did not expressly address a material line of defence

Written by Kate Holland In UK Grid Solutions Limited and Amey Power Services Limited v Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission PLC,[1] the unsuccessful party to an adjudication sought to resist enforcement on the grounds that 1) the adjudicator had failed to address a...

Asking a decision-maker to take a sneaky peek isn’t a strategically clever move: adjudicator’s decision held unenforceable due to breach of without prejudice rules

Written by Maria Cole A party (AZ) brought proceedings in the England and Wales Technology and Construction Court (Court) to enforce the decision of an adjudicator against the respondent (BY).[1] During the adjudication, AZ had placed without prejudice emails before...

Failed waterproofing causes a flood of costs

Written by Sam Dorne Legal battle over failed waterproofing comes to an end after plaintiffs prove their damages at the High Court in duty of care breach. Water water everywhere In the heart of Flat Bush, Auckland, stand the Nikau Apartments – a residential complex...

Mayor Brown is right about why public sector contracts go over time and over budget

Written by Rabin Rabindran and Derek Firth  In his opinion piece (NZ Herald 21 February 2024) Mayor Brown provides a number of reasons for these overruns.  They include an obsession with governance skills rather than a range of skills directly useful to the sector...

BuildLaw Issue 53

March 2024Download PDF   CONTENTS From the Editor BuildLaw in Brief A cat among pigeons Major changes to seismic building standards Failed waterproofing causes a flood of costs Asking a decisionmaker to take a sneaky peak isn’t a strategically clever...

High Court soundly dismisses judicial review of adjudication determinations but may inadvertently have put the cat among the pigeons

By Alexander Lyall In Sam Pemberton Civil Ltd v Robertson,[1] the High Court considered applications for judicial review of two related adjudication determinations. In dismissing the applications, the Court underscored some of the key functions of the Construction...

Technocratic payment regime not the priority under the Construction Contracts Act

Written by Alexander Lyall In Dem Home Ltd v New Gate Ltd[1] the High Court considered whether a payment claim had been validly served under the Construction Contracts Act 2002 (the CCA). The decision is an ever-important reminder that the CCA is designed to maintain...

Highly stressful circumstances: Court of Appeal assesses contract in earthquake insurance mess

Written by Alexander Lyall   The Court of Appeal (the Court) has issued a decision in a long-running dispute between a Christchurch homeowner and her insurance and legal advocates. Pfisterer v Claims Resolution Service Limited & Anor[1] contains a close look...

Kane v Venues NSW: The Handrail Tale

Written by Sam Dorne The case of Venues NSW v Kane [2023] NSWCA 192, involving a patron’s fall within the lower concourse of the western grandstand of the McDonald Jones Stadium in Newcastle, Australia, looks at a fundamental legal question surrounding the duty of...

How do you solve a problem like retentions?

Written by Kate Holland The use of retentions in construction contracts is culturally ingrained in the industry but it is increasingly seen as an outdated and unfair practice. In the UK, there have long been calls to abolish or regulate retentions, but little progress...

The “measured duty” to love thy neighbour: private nuisance and naturally occurring hazards

Written by Maria Cole A Christchurch landowner, whose property sits at the foot of unstable clifftop land purchased by the Crown following the Canterbury earthquakes, has failed in the Supreme Court to obtain damages in “private nuisance” for the risk of further...

BuildLaw Issue 52

December 2023Download PDF   CONTENTS From the Editor BuildLaw in Brief How do you solve a problem like retentions? The “measured duty” to love thy neighbour: Private nuisance and naturally occurring hazards. Disruption claims: Are your project records up to date?...

New regulations for building products

Written by Richard Pidgeon The Building (Building Product Information Requirements) Regulations 2022 set out how information about building products contributes to building code compliance. The regulations stipulate that information on how products are to be installed...

Mainzeal saga ends in the Supreme Court

By Richard Pidgeon In Yan v Mainzeal Property and Construction Limited [2023] NZSC 113 the Supreme Court upheld damages against Mr Yan in the sum of $39.8 million and the remaining three directors (including Dame Jenny Shipley) jointly with Mr Yan in the sum of $6.6...

Obstructed view review

Written by Maria Cole Introduction In Wynyard Quarter Residents Association Incorporated v Auckland Council and Orams Group Limited,[1] a group of apartment owners filed judicial review proceedings seeking to overturn an Auckland Council decision to grant resource...

The losing streak is over: English rugby wins… right to bring claim against contractor

Written by Alexander Lyall Nearly 10 years on, English rugby finally has a victory related to the 2015 Rugby World Cup. In FM Conway Ltd v Rugby Football Union,[1] a company contracted by the English Rugby Football Union (the RFU) for maintenance works at Twickenham...

Keep calm and carry on: English Court of Appeal overturns controversial High Court ruling and clarifies guiding principles in serial adjudications

By Kate Holland The English High Court caused concern earlier this year when it held that an adjudicator had breached natural justice by holding himself bound by a previous adjudicator’s findings. Now, in Sudlows Ltd v Global Switch Estates 1 Limited,[1] the Court of...

Moving home

Written by Richard Pidgeon A family became dissatisfied with a house removal firm who had shifted their home from Remuera to Katikati. In Stott v Uplifting Homes Ltd [2023] NZHC 1514, the High Court determined the level of compensation after the contract was...

Big loss for insurer in legal battle with Napier Council over leaky building clause

Written by Sam Dorne In a recent case, the Supreme Court of New Zealand ruled in favour of the Napier City Council in an insurance claim involving building defects including weathertightness or “leaky building” issues, in what is seen as a return to the status quo...

BuildLaw Issue 51

September 2023Download PDF   CONTENTS BuildLaw in Brief Keep calm and carry on Mainzeal saga ends in the Supreme Court New Zealand: Insurance under Scrutiny Obstructed view review Case in Brief: Esk Valley marae injunction Res judicata and declarations relating...

Take a rain cheque – Full Federal Court of Australia reads common sense into insurance policy

By Alexander Lyall A decision by the Full Federal Court of Australia has provided clarification about the wording of an insurance policy for a construction project. In Acciona Infrastructure Australia Pty Ltd v Zurich Australian Insurance Limited [2023] FCAFC 47,[1] ...

Case update: English Court of Appeal confirms ‘useless’ ADR procedure too uncertain to enforce

By Kate Holland In our December 2022 issue of BuildLaw, we reported on a case in the English High Court[1] about an unusual alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedure in a construction contract that was held to be too uncertain to be an enforceable condition...

English Court of Appeal confirms ‘useless’ ADR procedure too uncertain to enforce

By Kate Holland In our December 2022 issue of BuildLaw, we reported on a case in the English High Court[1] about an unusual alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedure in a construction contract that was held to be too uncertain to be an enforceable condition...

Disgruntled builders lose defective cladding dispute

By Sam Dorne In Goodman-Jones v Hughey & ors [2023] NZHC 604, two experienced builders brought a claim for damages for a perceived defective installation of cladding for a new build. Despite the action being brought against multiple defendants the Court found that...

BuildLaw Issue 50

June 2023Download PDF   CONTENTS BuildLaw in Brief: Recent key developments in the construction industry Bad faith and without substantial merit – What it means and what it takes Disgruntled builders lose defective cladding dispute High-rise blues Build-to-Rent:...

Craftiness is not an abuse of process

With cashflow a persistent concern for companies in the construction industry, a recent decision in the New South Wales Supreme Court may alleviate some of the stress. The decision should affirm to struggling parties that there is no problem with taking strategic...

Privileged glimpses: Curtain falls on art gallery’s nuisance ‘human zoo’ exhibit

By Kate Holland The UK Supreme Court has ruled that the London Tate Modern’s public viewing gallery overlooking the luxury glass-walled apartments nearby, is a visual intrusion amounting to the tort of nuisance. The decision in has attracted criticism for prioritising...

Waiver and estoppel arguments raised in interim payment dispute

By Sam Dorne The English Court of Appeal case of A & V Building Solutions Limited v J & B Hopkins Limited has highlighted issues parties face when there is ambiguity in relation to dates for requesting interim payment in construction contracts.[1] The case...

Doing business in Australia? Then you need to know when you still might have to pick up the whole tab

By Maria Cole If you have a commercial contract in Australia, it’s probably governed by Australian law, which includes the proportionate liability regime.[1] Broadly, proportionate liability means if there are multiple parties to a contract and things go wrong, a...

Parliament passes sweeping amendments to construction payment regime

By Alexander Lyall Parliament has recently enacted legislation allowing for comprehensive changes to the Construction Contracts Act 2002. The Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Act 2023 passed its third reading on Wednesday 29 March and received Royal...

BuildLaw Issue 49

March 2023Download pdf   CONTENTS Diamond Glass slices damages in airport contract Case in Brief: Craftiness is not an abuse of process (Kennedy Civil Contracting Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) v Richard Crookes Construction Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 99) That...

Builder terminates contract with a “sorry mate…costs are going through the roof”

By Kate Holland With the construction industry in the grip of labour and supply shortages and spiralling costs, a recent decision of the Queensland court is a timely reminder of the established principles of contractual repudiation. The decision is a warning to...

Ripping up the Resource Management Act

By Adrian Sharma The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) is one of New Zealand’s most important pieces of legislation. It governs what can be built where, when, and how. But more than 30 years on from its introduction, and after numerous amendments, the controversial...

To bespoke or too bespoke – the case of an ADR clause that couldn’t be enforced

By Kate Holland In a recent English decision, the Technology and Construction Court held that a clause in a construction contract requiring the parties to refer a dispute to ADR was a condition precedent to commencing litigation in the courts. However, the Court also...

The Court of Appeal sounds the all clear and it’s business as usual under the CCA: so file a payment schedule or pay up!

By Maria Cole A decision issued by the High Court last year caused a “head in hands” moment in the construction industry in relation to the payment claim regime. The High Court set aside a statutory demand which had been filed to enforce a payment claim as a debt due...

BuildLaw Issue 48

December 2022Download pdf   CONTENTS The Court of Appeal sounds the all clear and it’s business as usual under the CCA: so issue a payment schedule or pay up! Case in Brief: Builder terminates contract with a “sorry mate… costs are going through the roof” but...

Labelling an image as an ‘artist impression’ was found not to give a developer artistic licence in a claim of misleading and deceptive conduct over an ‘off-the-plan’ premium apartment

By Maria Cole Australian consumer protection law was given an outing in the Federal Court of Australia when a developer merely added the words ‘artist impression’ to a computer generated image it intended to use in its marketing materials for an ‘off-the-plan’...

Fire risk – defective cladding litigation heats up

By Sam Dorne In England and Wales, the Technology and Construction Court in Martlet Homes Ltd v Mulalley & Co Ltd [2022] EWHC 1813 (TCC) (14 July 2022) has released the first decision arising out of a defective cladding dispute following the Grenfell Tower...

BuildLaw Issue 47

September 2022CONTENTS Competition not working well in residential building suppliesmarket Fire risk – defective cladding litigation heats up Case in Brief: Supreme Court of New South Wales finds forcemajeure clause offered no protection for loss and damage togoods in...

WA Supreme Court finds no implied licence to use home design plan

By Kate Holland In a recent Australian case, the WA Supreme Court was unwilling to interpret a contract between a home builder and their client to imply a licence allowing the client to use the builder’s design in whatever way they pleased. Although the case was...

Overhaul coming to the regulation of engineers

By Sam Dorne The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) undertook a consultation in 2021 to reform the regulatory regime for engineers. The reforms will move away from a voluntary accreditation scheme into a formal regulated regime.   Current...

Expert “evidence” needs to be more than just bald assertions to win the day

By Adrian Sharma Leakage issues in a building can be a real dampener. A recent decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) which considered conflicting expert evidence on water ingress issues in a newly built property highlighted the...

An adjudicator’s decision on a construction contract is definitely worth the paper it’s written on!

By Maria Cole It’s only in rare circumstances that the courts will interfere with the decision of an adjudicator on a construction contract. A recent decision out of the English Technology and Construction Court (TCC) considered arguments that an adjudicator acted in...

You break it you bought it: Supreme Court confirms you can’t cancel a contract for failure to satisfy a condition if your own behaviour had a material effect on the failure

By Belinda Green.   We’ve known for a long time that a party can’t rely on a failure to satisfy a condition if the condition failed to satisfy because of their action. But we never really had an explanation of how bad that “failure” had to be until now. In its...

BuildLaw Issue 46

March 2022CONTENTS You break it you bought it: Supreme Court confirms you can’t cancel a contract for failure to satisfy a condition if your own behaviour had a material effect on the failure Case in Brief: Unhelpful expert witness sees homeowners succeed in defective...

Vicarious liability and subcontractors

By Sam Dorne Liability in tort depends upon proof of a personal breach of duty, with one true exception, vicarious liability. The law of negligence is generally fault based; a defendant is personally liable only for the defendant’s own negligent acts and omissions....

Limitation for payment claims under construction contracts

By Sam Dorne The decision in Hirst v Dunbar [2022] EWHC 41 (TCC) considers the impact of payment provisions in a construction contract, whether through contract or implied terms, and the commencement of the limitation period for payment claims under the contract. It...

Extensions of time in construction contracts

By Jo O’Dea   In an extension of time claim, blame for the delay was a relevant consideration when assessing what was “fair and reasonable”.   In CAJ v CAI [2021] 5 GCA 102, the Singapore Court of Appeal considered the issue of extensions of time in...

BuildLaw Issue 45

March 2022CONTENTS Extensions of time in construction contracts Construction contract procedure and dispute resolution: There really is a reason to pay attention to the boring stuff Principals beware, constructive acceleration is here UK: Important announcement on the...

Testing the waters: New South Wales Supreme Court considers the prevention principle

By Hannah Aziz  Court provides further confirmation that the prevention principle can be excluded by the terms of a contract.   Introduction Following our recent commentary comparing the operation of the prevention principle in New South Wales and Victoria, the...
Skip to content