District Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Di Lullo v JG King Pty Ltd [2025] NSWDC 213 Hearing dates: 22 – 25, 28 October 2024 Date of orders: 13 June 2025 Decision date: 13 June 2025 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Cole DCJ Decision: See [185] – [186] of the judgment
Catchwords: BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION — Contract — Defects – Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) – Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) – liability of builder – liability of engineer
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Home Building Act 1989 (NSW)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Pafburn Pty Ltd v The Owners – Strata PlanNo 84674 [2024] HCA 46
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Adrian Di Lullo (First Plaintiff)
Letticia Di Lullo (Second Plaintiff)
JG King Pty Ltd (Defendant/Cross-Claimant on the First Cross-Claim)
Newpoint Reinsurance Company Ltd (First Cross-Defendant on the First Cross-Claim/Cross-Defendant on the Second Cross-Claim)
Enio Sciessere (Second Cross-Defendant on the First Cross-Claim/Cross-Claimant on the Second Cross-Claim)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
A Barnett (Plaintiffs)
F Galvin (Defendant/Cross-Claimant on the First Cross-Claim)
T E O’Brien (First Cross-Defendant on the First Cross-Claim/Cross-Defendant on the Second Cross-Claim)
R A Parsons (Second Cross-Defendant on the First Cross-Claim/Cross-Claimant on the Second Cross-Claim)
Holding Redlich (Plaintiffs)
Champions Lawyers (Defendant/Cross-Claimant on the First Cross-Claim)
HBA Crawford (First Cross-Defendant on the First Cross-Claim/Cross-Defendant on the Second Cross-Claim)
Hicks Oakley Chessell Williams Lawyers & Notary (Second Cross-Defendant on the First Cross-Claim/Cross-Claimant on the Second Cross-Claim)
File Number(s): 2022/00133113 Publication restriction: Nil
JUDGMENT
-
The plaintiffs, Adrian and Letticia Di Lullo (‘the Di Lullos’) engaged JG King Pty Ltd (‘the Builder’) to build a house on the Di Lullos’ property in a town in south-western New South Wales (‘the property’). The house was completed in June 2017. Subsequently, elements of the house, including the roof, the wall bracing, the walls, wet areas, cornices, floors and fixtures have suffered damage because of significant movement in the house. The movement has been attributed to the slab on which the house is built, which is a waffle slab, becoming distorted in a process referred to as ‘edge heave’.
-
In these proceedings, the Di Lullos allege that the Builder has breached statutory warranties provided for under s 18B(1) of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW), has breached its contract with them, and has breached the duty of care imposed on it under s 37 of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW). The Builder denies that it breached statutory warranties, breached the contract and/or breached the duty of care under s 37 of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020.
-
The Builder has brought a cross-claim (‘the First Cross-Claim’) against both Mr Enio Sciessere, the engineer who designed the slab for the Di Lullos’ house pursuant to an agreement with the Builder, and against Newpoint Reinsurance Company Ltd (‘Newpoint’), the reinsurer for General…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Di Lullo v JG King Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] NSWDC 213
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to decide whether the builder and the engineer were liable for the defects in the construction. This involved examining the terms of the contracts, the roles and responsibilities of the parties, and the standards expected under the relevant legislation. A key issue was whether the defects were due to the design, construction, or oversight, and if so, who was responsible for ensuring that the construction met the required standards.
The court found that both the builder and the engineer were liable for the defects. The builder was held accountable for the substandard construction, while the engineer was found liable for failing to properly supervise the work and ensure that the construction complied with the design. The court emphasised that both parties had statutory duties under the Home Building Act and the Design and Building Practitioners Act, which they had breached. The decision underscored the importance of adherence to statutory obligations and the potential for joint liability in complex construction disputes.
The final orders of the court mandated that JG King Pty Ltd and the engineer pay compensation to Di Lullo for the defects, including costs associated with rectifying the issues. The specific amounts and details of the orders are set out in paragraphs [185] and [186] of the judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [185] – [186] of the judgment
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.