ARTICLE
3 August 2015

Can I sue an owner builder for defective work?

WT
Watkins Tapsell

Contributor

Watkins Tapsell is a client-focused law firm with over 50 years of experience. They provide comprehensive legal support to families, individuals, small businesses, and larger companies. With six Partners and a dedicated team, they prioritize exceeding client expectations by anticipating legal changes and adapting their services to meet evolving needs. Building long-term relationships is a core value for Watkins Tapsell.
An owner builder gives the same promises as a builder with a building contract, so can also be sued for defective work.
Australia Real Estate and Construction

There seems to be a lot of people now being owner builders. It may be because of the popularity of shows like The Block and House Rules and the desire to purchase property as an investment, renovate and then sell for a nice gain.

However our Building and Construction Lawyers meet a lot of owner builders who are not aware that they can be sued.

An owner builder gives the same promises as a builder who enters into a building contract with someone to carry out work. An owner builder can be sued for defective works.

The promises include that the building work was performed in a proper and workmanlike manner. This is highlighted in a recent case.

A couple wanted to extensively renovate their home. The husband travelled regularly for work so the wife decided that she would hold the owner builders licence. She then entered into contracts with all tradespeople and co-ordinated all of the works on site. Once the works were finished they sold the property.

Another couple purchased the property and not long after moving in they experienced problems with quite a number of items including the air conditioning and sealing of the windows. Whenever it rained they had water coming into the house.

The judge found that the building works were defective, ie: they were not performed in a proper and workmanlike manner, and as a result the wife was ordered to pay the owners a sum of $1,171,124.

What was meant to be a clever investment strategy turned out to be quite an expensive exercise!

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More