The Owners, Strata Plan 11011 v Integrated Project Services Pty Ltd (No. 2)

In the case of The Owners, Strata Plan 11011 v Integrated Project Services Pty Ltd (No. 2), the plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to reinstate the support to their land and building. The defendants admitted to breaching their duty of care in relation to the plaintiff’s right of support under section 177 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) and acknowledged that some form of mandatory injunction was appropriate. The court was tasked with deciding which method of reinstatement should be mandated: the “grout injection” method proposed by the defendants, which was quicker and simpler but riskier, or the underpinning method proposed by the plaintiff.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate method for reinstating the support and the relevance of the defendants' failure to comply with development consent conditions. The court had to balance the defendants' proposal of a quicker and simpler but riskier method against the plaintiff’s proposal of a more thorough but slower method. Additionally, the court considered whether the defendants' non-compliance with development consent conditions should influence the choice of reinstatement method.

The court held that the underpinning method proposed by the plaintiffs should be undertaken. This decision was based on the defendants' failure to comply with the development consent conditions, which heightened the risk associated with the grout injection method. The court concluded that the underpinning method, while more time-consuming and complex, was the safer and more reliable option, ensuring the integrity and stability of the plaintiff’s land and building. The court’s decision underscored the importance of adhering to development consent conditions and selecting reinstatement methods that prioritise safety and compliance.