"Game-changer" for construction industry now has wider implications
“These decisions will mean greater exposure for construction professionals and their insurers to litigation, particularly in the context of all dwelling types,” said Matthew Smith (pictured above), Clyde & Co partner and a specialist in engineering and construction claims. “Some claims that are on foot may be amended to bring in builders or designers as a result of these recent judgements.”
According to Smith, until now, the industry assumed the DBPA regulation only applied to residential buildings.
“The DBPA was a game-changer mainly because it created a retrospective statutory duty of care in circumstances where one did not exist previously,” said Smith. “It was a departure from High Court decisions such as Brookfield Multiplex Ltd v Owners Corporation Strata Plan 61288 [2014] HCA 36, in which the Court found that the builder of a development did not owe a duty of care in tort to the developer, lot owners or the owners corporation, and was not responsible for latent defects.”
Read next: Construction sector prepared for ‘tragedy’ after third La Nina declaration
James Rigney (pictured below), special counsel with Clyde & Co said the DBPA codified a duty for design and building practitioners to exercise reasonable care to avoid economic loss caused by defects for a retrospective 10-year period. However, both the Opal and Mascot towers, he said, were either class 2 or mixed-use class 2 buildings.
“Everyone in the industry, from builders, engineers, insurers, lawyers and so on, assumed that the DBPA’s duty was owed purely to these buildings,” said Rigney, who is an insurance law expert in construction disputes.
However, the two recent decisions by Justice James Stevenson in the NSW Supreme Court have changed all that. Rigney cited a case called Goodwin involving the construction of boarding houses in Newcastle and a second case, Pafburn, involving a strata development in Walker Street, North Sydney.
Rigney said Goodwin expanded the statutory duty of care to more types of buildings and Pafburn clarified the meaning of “construction work” under the new Act.
“Stevenson J’s two recent decisions have shaken up this [previous] collective understanding, opening up the possibility for claims alleging breach of the DBPA’s duties as the duty now encompasses more buildings and more practitioners,” he said.
Buildings under the Act are now defined according to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), he said, which includes boarding houses and residential homes.
“Anyone who is able to exercise ‘substantial control’ over building work, even if they don’t exercise that control, will be in effect undertaking “construction work” under the DBPA,” said Rigney, “And therefore owe a duty of care not to cause economic loss.”
He said this can include developers “in certain circumstances.”
Read next: John Trowbridge lifts lid on strata insurance review
Rigney said insurers should review the scope of coverage under their current policies because the breadth of the DBPA’s grasp has now “increased substantially”.
“Insureds that were initially not considered to owe the duty, now do, and a lot of the buildings that were otherwise considered to have been outside of the DBPA’s ambit, are situated within it,” he said.
Rigney said construction professional indemnity (PI) insurers may need to price these considerations into their future policies.
“For example, an insurer of an engineer involved in low-rise residential construction work, might not previously have priced the risk of DBPA claims into their policies, whereas now they will be required to do so,” he said.
Smith said directors and officers (D&O) insurers will also need to determine whether the DBPA might expose developer entities to claims as a result.
“While a claim under a D&O policy is less likely, insurers may seek to exclude certain types of claims under their policies as a result,” he said.
Smith said construction industry related claims against directors and officers could arise from failing to properly manage a company and exposing it to certain risks. “Claims could also arise from knowledge of regulatory breaches on the part of directors and officers,” he said.
In the context of construction related laws, Smith said NSW’s DBPA – even without the recent decisions expanding its reach – is “somewhat novel in the sense that it is a statutory duty which calls for avoiding economic loss, as opposed to any contractual duty as agreed upon between (mostly) commercial parties in arm’s length transactions.”
By way of international comparisons, Smith said the UK has laws that are “similar to NSW’s pre-DBPA.”
“While there have been rumblings of a liability for negligence for the cost of rectifying a ‘dangerous defect’”, he said, “these rumblings have since been quashed on the basis that such a qualification was not consistent with the present state of the law in the UK, which recognised no other basis for liability in pure economic loss outside of those assumed by a party contractually.”
