The Owners - Strata Plan No 74602 v Brookfield Australia Investments Ltd

The Owners – Strata Plan No 74602 (Plaintiff) brought proceedings against Brookfield Australia Investments Ltd (Defendant) and others in relation to defects in a strata titled building. The Plaintiff, as successor in title to the developer, sought damages for breaches of statutory warranties under the Home Building Act 1989, as well as claims under tort law. The primary issues before the court involved whether the Defendant breached the statutory warranties regarding the building’s facade, the extent of water ingress, the necessity of proposed remedial works, and the Plaintiff's claims concerning defects in mechanical services, bathrooms, fire services, and general internal defects.

The court examined the contractual obligations and statutory warranties, focusing on the interpretation of the "Hyder Specification" and whether a reasonable businessperson would expect the facade to be fully weather tight. It considered expert and observational evidence regarding water ingress, the relevance of prototype testing, and the appropriateness of the Plaintiff's tests. The court also addressed whether the Plaintiff, as the developer's successor, could enforce the statutory warranties against the sub-contractor, and whether the claims were statute-barred. Additionally, the court assessed whether the Defendant owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff and if the Plaintiff's statutory warranties negated such a duty.

The court found that the Defendant breached the statutory warranties concerning the facade's weather tightness, but the breaches were not as extensive as claimed. It held that the proposed remedial work was not out of proportion to the benefits obtained and ordered the Defendant to carry out the work. The court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims for defects in mechanical services, bathrooms, fire services, and general internal defects, finding insufficient evidence to support them. Regarding the sub-contractor, the court determined that the Plaintiff could enforce the statutory warranties and that the limitation period had not expired. Finally, the court held that the Defendant owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff, distinguishing the case from previous authority.

The court ordered the Defendant to complete the remedial works to the facade, and to pay damages to the Plaintiff for the breaches of statutory warranties. The court dismissed all other claims, and the Plaintiff was ordered to pay the Defendant's costs of the proceeding.