Owners Corporation SP 80609 v Paragon Construction (NSW) Pty Limited

In the case of Owners Corporation SP 80609 v Paragon Construction (NSW) Pty Limited, the plaintiffs sought leave to bring a cross claim against the principal certifying authority in relation to defects in the construction of a residential building. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendant, Paragon Construction (NSW) Pty Limited, opposed the application for leave to bring a cross claim, arguing that such a claim was not maintainable at law and that the principal certifying authority did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs. Additionally, it was argued that any liabilities which might exist were not coordinate, and that prior questions of law could not be quickly and easily resolved. The plaintiffs, in turn, argued that there was no prejudice to the principal certifying authority other than costs and inconvenience.

The court considered the legal issues it was required to decide, which included whether the cross claim against the principal certifying authority was maintainable at law, whether the principal certifying authority owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs, and whether any liabilities which might exist were coordinate. The court also had to consider whether prior questions of law were able to be quickly and easily resolved and whether there was any prejudice to the principal certifying authority other than costs and inconvenience. The court found that the cross claim was maintainable at law and that the principal certifying authority did owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs. The court also found that any liabilities which might exist were coordinate and that prior questions of law were able to be quickly and easily resolved. Furthermore, the court found that there was no prejudice to the principal certifying authority other than costs and inconvenience.

The court granted leave for the plaintiffs to bring a cross claim against the principal certifying authority, finding that the cross claim was maintainable at law and that the principal certifying authority owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs. The court also found that any liabilities which might exist were coordinate and that prior questions of law were able to be quickly and easily resolved. The court further found that there was no prejudice to the principal certifying authority other than costs and inconvenience. The court also noted that an offer of compromise had been accepted between the first plaintiff and the third defendant, but that judgment should not be entered now in accordance with UCPR 20.27, as there was no prejudice in delaying entry of judgment until the trial. The court made no orders in relation to the entry of judgment at this time.