Baron Corporation Pty Ltd v Owners of Strata Plan 69567

Baron Corporation Pty Ltd appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against orders made by the Equity Division concerning the interpretation of the *Home Building Act 1989* (NSW). The dispute involved Owners of Strata Plan 69567 (the plaintiff) seeking to enforce statutory warranties against Baron Corporation Pty Ltd (the second defendant, referred to as the appellant) in relation to residential building work done on common property. The core of the disagreement was whether the appellant qualified as a "developer" under the Act, thereby making it liable for implied statutory warranties to the owners corporation, even though the owners corporation was not a direct party to any contract with the appellant for the construction of the common property.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the appellant was a "developer" for the purposes of the *Home Building Act 1989* and, consequently, whether the owners corporation, as the owner of the common property, was entitled to the benefit of the statutory warranties implied by section 18B of the Act and could enforce them against the appellant as if the appellant had constructed the common property under a contract with the owners corporation. This involved determining who is considered to have done residential building work "on whose behalf" for the purposes of defining a developer under the Act, and the extent to which a non-contracting owner of common property could benefit from these statutory warranties.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous orders. The Court determined that the appellant was not a developer for the purposes of the *Home Building Act 1989* in relation to the construction of the common property. Accordingly, the owners corporation was not entitled to the benefit of the statutory warranties implied by section 18B of the Act against the appellant. The Court ordered that the question of whether the appellant was a developer and whether the plaintiff was entitled to enforce the statutory warranties be answered in the negative. The costs of the hearing of that separate question were made the appellant's costs in the cause, and the respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appellant in the Court of Appeal.