The Owners of Strata Plan No 87881 and others took legal action against Frasers Broadway Pty Ltd and others regarding building defects in a high-rise development known as ‘One Central Park’ in Chippendale, Sydney. The case mainly revolved around issues with planter boxes attached to the building’s facade, which had a history of falling and raised fire safety concerns. The owners sought a court declaration that re-installing the existing planter boxes, as might be required by a building rectification order, would breach building laws. However, the developers argued that the owners’ new case was unnecessary and should be dismissed or handled alongside four other building defect cases already underway. The court agreed with the developers, dismissing the owners’ case and stating that the issues could and should be dealt with in the existing proceedings.
Key details
- Case Name: The Owners Strata Plan No 87881 v Frasers Broadway Pty Ltd
- Case Number: 2025/48263
- Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
- Date of Decision: 10 October 2025
- Judge: Rees J
- Plaintiffs: The Owners Strata Plan No 87881, The Owners Strata Plan No 88765, The Owners Strata Plan No 89262, and Fortius Broadway No 1 Pty Ltd (representing residential and retail owners)
- Defendants: Frasers Broadway Pty Ltd, Frasers Central Park Land No 1 Pty Ltd (developers)
- Key Issue: Whether a declaration should be made that re-installing existing planter boxes would contravene the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW), and whether this new case was an abuse of process by duplicating existing legal actions.
- Outcome: Proceedings dismissed.
Simple summary of the case
This whole situation kicked off because of problems with planter boxes on the ‘One Central Park’ building. Some of these boxes have fallen off, and there were worries about them being a fire hazard. The NSW government even issued orders for the developers to fix these issues, including replacing faulty bolts and addressing drainage problems.
The owners of the apartments and shops (the plaintiffs) launched a new lawsuit asking the court to declare that if the developers were to put the same planter boxes back on after fixing them, it would break the law, specifically the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020. They believed that because the building code had changed, using the old, combustible materials for the planter boxes again would be illegal.
The developers (the defendants) argued that this new lawsuit was a waste of time and resources. They pointed out that there were already four other lawsuits going on about the building defects, and the issues the owners wanted to address in this new case were already part of those existing cases. The developers wanted this new case thrown out or managed together with the others to avoid confusion, repeated legal arguments, and extra costs.
The judge, Rees J, agreed with the developers. The court found that the owners’ request for a declaration was somewhat hypothetical because it wasn’t yet certain that the planter boxes would need to be removed and reinstalled in a way that would contravene the law. Furthermore, the judge felt that bringing a separate case for this specific issue was an abuse of process, as it duplicated the work and potential findings of the four existing cases. The court also noted concerns about other parties who might be responsible for the costs not being involved in this new, separate proceeding.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the owners’ new proceedings. The judge advised that the owners should raise these concerns within the existing four building defect cases, where all relevant parties are involved and the issues can be dealt with comprehensively. This would prevent duplicate efforts, potential conflicting judgments, and unnecessary legal costs. The court ordered the owners to pay the developers’ costs for this specific motion.
Q&A
- Is it legal to bring multiple lawsuits about the same issue? Generally, no. It’s considered an abuse of process if you start new proceedings that raise the same issues already being dealt with in existing cases, especially if it creates duplication and extra costs.
- What if I believe a rectification method for a building defect will break the law? You should raise this concern within the existing legal proceedings that deal with the building defects, rather than starting a completely new case, particularly if other parties are already involved in litigation regarding those defects.
- Can I ask the court for a ‘declaration’ about future actions? Courts can make declarations about future possibilities, but they might refuse if the issue is too hypothetical, not yet certain, or if making the declaration could cause more disputes or unfairness to other parties not involved in that specific proceeding.
- What happens if multiple parties are involved in a building defect case? If you bring a new case that could affect the rights or liabilities of parties involved in other related cases, those other parties should ideally be involved in the new proceedings so they are bound by the outcome and their interests can be heard.
- When can a building rectification order be challenged? Building rectification orders are made by government bodies. Challenges or interpretations of what is required by such an order are typically handled within the legal proceedings that deal with the underlying building defects.
- What is an ‘abuse of process’ in court? It’s when legal proceedings are used for improper purposes, such as trying to re-litigate issues already decided, causing unnecessary delay or expense, or trying to gain an unfair advantage.
- What are ‘building defects’? These are flaws or imperfections in the construction or materials of a building that can affect its safety, usability, or appearance.
- What is a ‘building rectification order’? This is an official order from a government authority requiring a building owner or developer to fix specified defects in a building.
- What does ‘case managed’ mean in legal terms? It means a judge actively manages the progress of a case, often involving multiple related proceedings, to ensure efficiency, consistency, and a fair resolution for all parties involved.
- What is the ‘Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020’ (NSW)? This is a NSW law aimed at improving the integrity of the building and construction industry, placing more responsibility on those involved in the design and construction process.
- What if the building code changes after my building was constructed? Generally, rectification work must comply with the building code applicable at the time of the rectification, but there can be complexities, especially if the original work complied with the code at the time of construction.
- Can I sue developers for building defects? Yes, owners can sue developers for breaches of statutory warranties or other legal duties related to building defects.
- What are ‘statutory warranties’? These are implied promises or guarantees that builders and developers make about the quality and compliance of their work, as set out in legislation like the Home Building Act.
- What happens if I bring a case that’s too similar to another one I’ve already filed? The court might dismiss the new case, order it to be combined with the existing case, or make other orders to prevent duplication, save costs, and ensure fairness.
- What does it mean for a declaration to be ‘hypothetical’? It means the declaration is about a situation that might happen in the future but isn’t certain to occur, or where the court feels it’s not the right time or context to make such a ruling.
- Should I get separate legal advice for different but related cases? While you can, courts prefer to streamline legal representation to avoid confusion and extra costs. It’s best to discuss with your existing legal team if they can handle all related matters.
You can find more simplified cases like this one at SAFLII simplified cases.