Australia, June 18 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on May 19:

1. These proceedings are listed for hearing before Nixon J for three weeks commencing 2 June 2025.

2. The plaintiff (the "Owners Corporation") is the owners corporation of a strata development at Olympic Park. The Owners Corporation brings these proceedings against the developer, Sydney Olympic Park Authority, and the builder, Parkview Constructions Pty Ltd ("Parkview").

3. One claim by the Owners Corporation relates to allegedly combustible aluminium composite cladding on the building (the "Cladding").

4. In relation to the Cladding, Parkview has brought a cross claim against a fire engineer, WSP Buildings Pty Ltd ("WSP"), an architect, Bates & Smart Pty Ltd ("Bates Smart"), and a certifier, McKenzie Group Consulting (NSW) Pty Ltd ("McKenzie").

5. I am dealing with Parkview's application, made by Notice of Motion filed on 17 April 2025, to amend its Cross Claim List Statement ("Cross Claim") against these parties.

6. Parkview has circulated six iterations of its proposed Cross Claim. I am dealing with the sixth and final iteration.

7. WSP and Bates Smart oppose the proposed amendments

8. The controversial aspects of the amendments go to the question of causation

9. Parkview alleges that each of WSP and Bates Smart acted in breach of their posited contractual and general law duties in relation to the Cladding and that, but for those breaches, Parkview would not be exposed to the Owners Corporation's claim.

10. When a party alleges that but for the impugned conduct of a party a particular circumstance would or would not have come about, it is important for the pleading to "identify the likely credible sequence of events which would have occurred" but for the impugned conduct that would have led to that result. [1]

11. Parkview's existing Cross Claim baldly asserts that "as a result" of the alleged breaches of contract and duty by WSP and Bates Smart, Parkview will suffer loss, being any damages payable to the Owners Corporation. [2]

12. WSP and Bates Smart have made no complaint about those allegations and have not sought particulars of them.

13. Parkview contends that the amendments seek to align its claim concerning the Cladding with expert evidence it has already served on WSP and Bates Smart, and had been responded to through expert evidence adduced by those parties.

14. That may be so, but it remains necessary that the pleading have the characteristics that I have set out at [10] above.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/196e5f7456ebcf3d79e959a6)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.