Koundouris v The Owners-Unit Plan No 1917

The applicant, the builder, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory. The dispute concerned the interpretation of statutory warranties under the *Building Act 2004* (ACT) and its predecessor, the *Building Act 1972* (ACT), particularly in relation to the duration of these warranties and the rights of successive owners. The applicant argued that the Court of Appeal's interpretation created obscurity and multiple sets of obligations where the legislation was intended to provide clarity for builders and purchasers of residential premises.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the statutory warranties, which commenced from the completion date of the work and expired six years later, gave rise to new and additional obligations each time a builder undertook repair work on a defect. Furthermore, the Court was asked to consider whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first limb of section 88(1) of the *Building Act 2004* applied to subsequent sales of units, thereby potentially creating multiple sets of rights for successive owners, even if those owners acquired their rights after the initial warranty period had expired.

The applicant contended that a breach of warranty should be considered to occur at the time of the first sale and settlement of a unit, as this is when the owner becomes entitled to sue. The Court of Appeal, however, had found that the builder remained in breach throughout the prescribed period due to systemic problems with the building, and that defective repair work undertaken by the builder could itself give rise to new warranties. The applicant argued that this approach created an erroneous situation where repair work generated new obligations, contrary to the legislative intent. The respondent argued that the legislation was consumer protection-oriented and that the Court of Appeal's construction, which ensured each purchaser within the warranty period received a new promise from the builder, made perfect sense and provided complete protection to consumers, preventing claims from being inhibited by the actions or knowledge of antecedent purchasers.

The High Court granted special leave to appeal, indicating that the case raised important questions regarding the interpretation of statutory warranties and their application to successive owners and repair work within the Australian Capital Territory. The ultimate outcome of the appeal was not determined in the provided transcript.