The Owners Corporation SP 90832 v Dyldam Developments Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 1519

The Owners Corporation SP 90832 v Dyldam Developments Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 1519

The order for determination of a separate question is revoked because it will not facilitate the just, quick and cheap disposition of the real issues, may cause delay, lacks utility due to lack of factual particularity, and does not properly address whether the duty of care applies in the specific circumstances of certification work under the Design Act.

Parties
Plaintiff: The Owners Corporation SP 90832; First Defendant: Dyldam Developments Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Merfad Capital Pty Ltd; Third Defendant: Dix Gardner Group Pty Ltd; Fourth Defendant: All Stop Fire Systems Pty Ltd; Fifth Defendant: Complete Fire Doors Australia Pty Ltd; Sixth Defendant: 21st Century Electrical Pty Ltd; Seventh Defendant: Dux Plumbing Services Pty Ltd; Eighth Defendant: Airwin Airconditioning Pty Ltd; Ninth Defendant: Perpetual Building Solutions Pty Ltd; Tenth Defendant: A1 Seal Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Procedural Ruling Revocation of Separate Question Order
Outcome
Order for determination of separate question revoked
Legal Topics
Design and Building Practitioners Act, Certifiers Act, Duty of Care, Determination of Separate Question, Procedure Revocation of Order
Building and Construction Civil Procedure Design and Building Practitioners Act Certifiers Act Duty of Care Determination of Separate Question Procedure Revocation of Order

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Owners Corporation SP 90832

Plaintiff

Dyldam Developments Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Merfad Capital Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Dix Gardner Group Pty Ltd

Third Defendant

All Stop Fire Systems Pty Ltd

Fourth Defendant

Complete Fire Doors Australia Pty Ltd

Fifth Defendant

21st Century Electrical Pty Ltd

Sixth Defendant

Dux Plumbing Services Pty Ltd

Seventh Defendant

Airwin Airconditioning Pty Ltd

Eighth Defendant

Perpetual Building Solutions Pty Ltd

Ninth Defendant

A1 Seal Pty Ltd

Tenth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Procedural Ruling Revocation of Separate Question Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the duty of care imposed by Part 4 of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) apply to certifiers?
  2. 2 Did the Third Defendant carry out 'construction work' within the meaning of Part 4 of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW)?
  3. 3 Is determination of the separate question utile for just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues?

Ratio Decidendi

The order for determination of a separate question is revoked because it will not facilitate the just, quick and cheap disposition of the real issues, may cause delay, lacks utility due to lack of factual particularity, and does not properly address whether the duty of care applies in the specific circumstances of certification work under the Design Act.

Court Disposition

Order for determination of separate question revoked

Orders

  • The order for the determination of a separate question made by consent between the Owners and Dix is revoked