Owners Corporation Strata Plan 61288 v Brookfield Multiplex

The case before the court involved Owners Corporation Strata Plan 61288 as the plaintiff against Brookfield Multiplex, with the dispute centred on whether Brookfield Multiplex owed a common law duty of care to the plaintiff in relation to defects in the construction of a building. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had failed to ensure that the building was constructed in a manner that was safe and without defects, and sought damages for the costs of rectifying these defects.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Brookfield Multiplex owed a common law duty of care to the plaintiff. This involved determining whether such a duty, if it existed, was inconsistent with the principle of statutory liability under the Strata Titles Act. The court also had to consider whether it was appropriate for a trial judge to determine the existence of a common law duty of care owed to an owners corporation. Additionally, the court examined whether the decision in Bryan v Maloney (1995) 182 CLR 609 could be used as authority for the existence of a duty of care in the current context.

The court found that the existence of a common law duty of care owed by the defendants to the plaintiff was a question of law that could be determined by the court at the outset of the proceedings, rather than being reserved for a jury. The court held that the question of whether such a duty existed should be determined by the trial judge based on the relevant statutory framework and legal principles. The court also concluded that the decision in Bryan v Maloney was not directly applicable to the facts of this case. The court ultimately determined that the defendants did owe a common law duty of care to the plaintiff, which was not inconsistent with the statutory liability under the Strata Titles Act.

The final orders of the court were that the defendants were liable to the plaintiff for the costs associated with rectifying the defects in the building. The court ordered that the matter be referred back to the primary judge to determine the quantum of damages owed by the defendants to the plaintiff.