Owners Corporation Strata Plan 61288 v Brookfield Multiplex [2012] NSWSC 1219

Owners Corporation Strata Plan 61288 v Brookfield Multiplex [2012] NSWSC 1219

It is not appropriate for a trial judge to impose a novel duty of care in favor of an owners corporation for economic loss arising from latent defects in common property in a commercial strata title hotel development, where parties negotiated at arms' length, and where legislation has excluded such developments from statutory warranties. Brookfield did not owe the Owners Corporation the duty of care alleged.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment Following Hearing on Separate Question of Duty of Care
Outcome
Judgment for defendants
Legal Topics
['duty of Care' 'latent Defects' 'economic Loss' 'statutory Regimes' 'strata Title Defects' 'separation of Issues' 'novel Duty of Care']
['building and Construction Law' 'tort Law' 'procedural Law'] ['duty of Care' 'latent Defects' 'economic Loss' 'statutory Regimes' 'strata Title Defects' 'separation of Issues' 'novel Duty of Care']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment Following Hearing on Separate Question of Duty of Care

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether defendants owed a common law duty of care to the Owners Corporation to avoid economic loss in rectifying defects in common property' 'Whether court should determine existence of duty of care as a separate and prior issue']

Ratio Decidendi

It is not appropriate for a trial judge to impose a novel duty of care in favor of an owners corporation for economic loss arising from latent defects in common property in a commercial strata title hotel development, where parties negotiated at arms' length, and where legislation has excluded such developments from statutory warranties. Brookfield did not owe the Owners Corporation the duty of care alleged.

Court Disposition

Judgment for defendants

Orders

  • ['Direct entry of judgment for first and second defendants.' "Plaintiff to pay defendants' costs." 'Direct that the exhibits be handed out.']