The Star Entertainment Sydney Properties Pty Ltd was suing Buildcorp Group Pty Ltd, who were the builders, over some work done at the Star Casino in Pyrmont. This case is about Buildcorp wanting to make changes to their defence and counter-claims on the very first day of a 10-day trial.
The Star was claiming about $4 million because they reckon Buildcorp used aluminium composite panels (ACPs) that weren’t up to scratch and could catch fire. Buildcorp, in turn, was blaming the architect and the insurance company for the facade installer.
Essentially, Buildcorp wanted to change how they explained things in their legal documents to better match the evidence that had been shared between everyone. They argued these changes would help sort out the real issues in the case.
Key details of the case
* Case Name: The Star Entertainment Sydney Properties Pty Ltd v Buildcorp Group Pty Ltd trading as Buildcorp Interiors (leave to amend)
* Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
* Case Number: 2020/112369
* Date of Decision: 15 October 2025
* Judge: Rees J
* Parties Involved:
* The Star Entertainment Sydney Properties Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
* The Star Pty Ltd (Second Respondent)
* Buildcorp Group Pty Ltd trading as Buildcorp Interiors (Defendant/Applicant)
* Malone Buchan Laird & Bawden Pty Ltd trading as The Buchan Group (Architect, Third Respondent)
* Philip Chun & Associates Pty Ltd as Trustee for Philip Chun & Associates NSW Unit Trust (Certifier, 4th Respondent)
* The Underwriting Members of Lloyd’s Syndicate 1206 (Insurers, 5th, 6th, 7th Respondents)
* Subject Matter: Application by the builder (Buildcorp) to amend its defence and cross-claims on the first day of a 10-day trial. The core dispute revolves around the installation of aluminium composite panels (ACPs) at the Star Casino, which The Star alleges are non-compliant and combustible.
Simple summary of the case
The whole kerfuffle started because The Star Entertainment Sydney Properties Pty Ltd reckoned that the builders, Buildcorp Group Pty Ltd, used dodgy aluminium panels on their casino. These panels, allegedly, weren’t up to standard and could be a fire hazard. The Star was asking for about $4 million to cover the costs of fixing this mess.
Buildcorp, being the builder, wasn’t just taking the blame. They had already fired off claims against the architect, the certifier, and the company that installed the facade. Now, right as the trial was about to kick off – literally on the first day – Buildcorp wanted to change their legal arguments. They wanted to update their defence and their claims against other parties to better reflect all the evidence that had been swapped around.
The judge, Rees J, had to decide if these last-minute changes were fair. Buildcorp argued that the changes were needed to make things clearer and focus on the real issues. The other parties, particularly the architect and the insurers, weren’t too happy. They said these late amendments would put them at a serious disadvantage, making it hard for them to prepare their defence properly, especially since there had already been 46 previous court orders and directions in this long-running case.
The judge looked at the rules about changing legal documents and decided that while most of Buildcorp’s proposed changes were okay, especially those clarifying their arguments about the architect’s role and the Australian Consumer Law claims, one specific claim against the insurers was a step too far. Buildcorp wanted to claim as an “insured” party under the facade installer’s policy, which the judge felt was too late and would cause significant prejudice to the insurers, who would have handled the case differently from the start if they’d known.
So, in the end, the judge allowed most of the amendments that helped clear up the builder’s case against the architect and other claims, but struck out the late claim where the builder wanted to be treated as an insured party. The builder had to cough up the costs for these amendments.
Q&A
* Is it legal to amend your defence on the first day of a trial? Generally, yes, courts have the power to allow amendments at any stage of proceedings, but it depends on the circumstances, the reasons for the amendment, and whether it causes prejudice to other parties. In this case, leave was granted in part.
* What happens if my opponent wants to change their claims right before the trial? The court will consider the reasons for the delay, the impact on the other parties (prejudice), and whether the changes will help resolve the actual issues in dispute. They might allow some changes but not others, and might order the party making the changes to pay costs.
* Can I introduce a completely new cause of action just before a trial? It’s unlikely. New causes of action, like the equitable contribution claim in this case, are often disallowed if they are introduced too late and cause significant prejudice, especially if they might be statute-barred.
* What is “prejudice” in a legal context? Prejudice means a disadvantage or harm that a party might suffer because of a change in the case. This could be not having enough time to gather new evidence, find new witnesses, or prepare a defence against a new argument.
* What are “pleadings”? Pleadings are the formal documents filed by each party in a lawsuit that set out their claims, defences, and counter-claims. They define the issues to be decided in the case.
* What is a “cross-claim”? A cross-claim is a claim made by a defendant against another party to the lawsuit (which could be the plaintiff or another defendant).
* What are “concurrent wrongdoers”? These are parties who have both contributed to the same harm or loss suffered by the plaintiff.
* What does “leave to amend” mean? It means the court has given permission for a party to change their legal documents (pleadings).
* When would a court refuse to allow amendments? A court might refuse if the amendments are sought too late, have no merit, would unfairly prejudice the other parties, or would cause an “ambush” of new arguments.
* What are “catchwords” in a judgment? Catchwords are a brief summary of the key legal issues or topics covered in a court decision.
* What is the “Technology and Construction List”? This is a special list within the Supreme Court that deals with cases involving building, engineering, and technology disputes.
* What is the “Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005” (UCPR)? These are the rules that govern how civil cases are conducted in New South Wales courts.
* What is the purpose of expert evidence? Expert evidence is given by someone with special knowledge or skill to help the court understand complex issues.
* **Can I rely on evidence that seems to contradict my earlier position?** Courts generally allow parties to amend their pleadings to reflect the evidence that has emerged, but they must provide a good reason and not cause unfair prejudice. This case shows it’s a balancing act.
* **What if I have multiple contracts with the same party and there’s a dispute?** Each contract will likely be treated separately, but the overall dispute might involve claims and counter-claims across them, as seen with Project Titan and Project Sovereign Rivers.
* **What happens if a company involved goes into liquidation?** The case can continue against other parties, but obtaining evidence or pursuing claims against the liquidated company becomes very difficult. It can also impact insurance claims.
* **What is “equitable contribution”?** It’s a legal principle where parties who share a common obligation to remedy a loss can be required to contribute to the cost of doing so, based on fairness.
* **What is “Australian Consumer Law” (ACL)?** It’s a set of laws that protect consumers against misleading or deceptive conduct by businesses.
* **What happens if a claim might be “statute barred”?** It means the time limit for bringing that claim has passed, and the court may refuse to hear it.
For more simplified cases on building and construction disputes, check out this collection of NSW Supreme Court Cases on medigosa.com.