Centurion Australia Investments Pty Ltd v APM Group (Aust) Pty Ltd

The matter before the court was a dispute between Centurion Australia Investments Pty Ltd and APM Group (Aust) Pty Ltd concerning the applicability of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 and the Domestic Building Contracts Regulations 2017 to a building that was used as student accommodation but was not physically located within the RMIT University campus. The primary question was whether the statutory provisions included a building that was in close association or connection with the university, or if the provisions were confined to buildings that were physically located within the university premises. The court was also tasked with determining whether the building work constituted the construction of a ‘home’ and whether the land was zoned exclusively for residential purposes.

The court considered the interpretation of the term ‘at’ in regulation 8(b) of the Domestic Building Contracts Regulations 2017 and whether it included a close association or connection, rather than being confined to a physical location. The court held that the judge’s consideration of the case Collector of Customs (Tas) v Flinders Island Community Association (1985) 7 FCR 205 was limited to providing an example and that the preposition ‘at’ could have a variety of meanings depending on the context. The court found that the point of connection was not confined to the physical location and that there was no error in the application of regulation 8(b). The court also determined that the building was suitable for permanent habitation and intended to be permanently inhabited, thereby concluding that the building work comprised the construction of a ‘home’. Finally, the court rejected the argument that the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995, section 5(1)(e) should be confined to land exclusively zoned for residential purposes, holding that the grounds of notice of contention were upheld.

The court granted leave to appeal but ultimately dismissed the appeal. The court held that there was no error in the application of the statutory provisions and that the building work fell within the scope of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 and the Domestic Building Contracts Regulations 2017. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and that the respondent, APM Group (Aust) Pty Ltd, be entitled to its costs of the appeal.