Event and Time
Event Description
The University of Sydney filed a Notice of Motion seeking amendments to its Technology and Construction List Statement as part of legal proceedings related to allegedly defective building work in the Charles Perkins Centre. The case involves multiple defendants, including the builder Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd and the certifying consultant McKenzie Group Consulting (NSW) Pty Ltd.
Application and Claims
- The University sought:
- Leave to file a Second Further Amended Technology and Construction List Statement. - Leave to adduce further lay or expert evidence. - Disclosure of identified documents.
Claims against McKenzie Group centered on its responsibilities as a certifying consultant and activities related to the cladding of the building.
Judicial Decisions
- The court refused leave to amend the List Statement concerning McKenzie Group.
- The University was granted leave to circulate further proposed amendments to the List Statement.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Plaintiff (University of Sydney) Claims:
- McKenzie Group engaged in construction work as defined under section 36 of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW). - The University alleged that McKenzie provided a BCA Compliance Report and a Certificate of Compliance that certified compliance with relevant standards. - Contended that McKenzie had a duty of care under section 37 of the DBP Act and had breached that duty, leading to defects in the building.
- Defendant (McKenzie Group Consulting) Defense:
- Argued the University failed to adequately demonstrate that McKenzie had substantive control over the relevant construction work. - Contended that the claims regarding breach of duty were insufficiently pled and that the University failed to show a causal link between the alleged breach and the damage claimed. - Asserted that reliance on issuance of reports does not imply control over construction activities.