+news

Securing infrastructure across adjoining land can become a significant issue where a development depends on access that a neighbouring owner is unwilling to provide. A recent NSW Land and Environment Court decision demonstrates that, in limited circumstances, judicial intervention may provide a pathway forward.

St Mary & Angels Pty Ltd v Strata Plan 32407 [2026] NSWLEC 74 concerned land at Chester Hill and a proposed childcare center development requiring stormwater to be directed through adjoining strata property before reaching Council’s drainage network. Despite efforts to reach an agreement with the neighbouring strata owners, the developer was unable to secure the easement by consent. As a result, the developer applied to the Land and Environment Court of NSW for an order creating the easement. 

Duggan J considered the application within the framework of s 40 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), which enabled the Court to exercise the relevant jurisdiction under s 88K of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW).

A central consideration was whether the drainage arrangement was sufficiently important to justify burdening the neighbouring property. The Court accepted that the proposed easement was necessary to support the proposed childcare use of the property and that the associated drainage arrangements raised no inconsistency with the public interest. The Court also considered the financial impact on the strata owners, approving an $85,000 payment for the easement following an expert valuation that assessed its market value at $58,000. 

Ultimately, this case illustrates that an easement application requires more than demonstrating that an arrangement would be convenient. Applicants must establish the statutory requirements and show that meaningful efforts have been made to resolve the issue commercially.

For developers, this makes early technical investigations, valuation evidence and negotiations particularly important. For neighbouring owners, a proposed easement should be examined in terms of its operational consequences, potential loss and the payment available if the land is burdened.

In Fortius Broadway No 1 Pty Ltd v Watpac (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 1) [2026] NSWSC 710, the NSW Supreme Court was required to determine whether the statutory 10-year cut-off for building actions also applied to contribution proceedings. The Court confirmed that claims brought under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW) are subject to the limitation imposed by section 6.20 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), and that the time limit cannot be revived or extended through the operation of section 74 of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW). 

This particular dispute concerned alleged building defects at a development in Chippendale, which were under examination after a planter box detached from the building. The retail lot owner commenced proceedings against a number of parties engaged in the project.

Before the 10 year statutory time limit elapsed, the retail lot owner applied to amend its pleadings by alleging further defects and adding a statutory duty of care claim against the certifier under the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW).

The certifier resisted the application, contending that permitting the amendment at such a late stage would materially disadvantage its position. It argued that the long-stop had effectively prevented it from bringing contribution claims against other parties and that section 74 of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) could not extend the time limit.

The Court accepted the certifier’s position, finding that contribution claims arise from the same loss or damage associated with defective building work and therefore fall within the scope of section 6.20 of the EPA Act. The Court further determined that section 74 of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) could not operate to extend the 10-year long-stop period, as section 6.20 applies despite any other Act or law.

The decision confirms that the 10-year long-stop operates as a strict cut-off for claims connected with defective building work, including contribution claims. It highlights the importance for construction participants and insurers to identify potential claims early and take steps to preserve their rights before the expiry of the statutory period.

A number of recent cases in NCAT have explored the consequences of terminating leases due to mould, highlighting the circumstances in which it is the landlord’s responsibility to deal with mould within a residential rental property. In Andrew Fletcher and Song Fletcher v Luke Bunbury [2015] NSWCATCD 60, the tenants gave a 14 day termination notice after an expert issued a report that the property in question was not fit for habitation. While the landlord had taken steps to install sub-floor vents, and the tenant had kept the property cleaned and the windows open for ventilation, the mould problem was still prevalent. The landlord argued that the tenant had misused the property by failing to ventilate, but the Court ultimately held that it was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure the premises was habitable. As compensation, the tenant was given a refund of excessive rent for the rooms they could not use due to the mould and $15,000 for the cost of professionally decontaminating their affected goods.

The government has announced it will support all of the 76 recommendations made in the final report from the Banking Royal Commission, suggesting that there is likely to be significant changes to home loans, mortgage brokers and compliance bodies in the financial sector by the end of the year. In relation to the property industry, Commissioner Hayne heavily criticized the lending practices of banks with home loans, particularly their reliance on the inaccurate household expenditure benchmark (HEM). While various banks have pledged to reduce their use of the HEM, home loan applicants may find their regular discretionary expenses playing a greater role in home loan applications from now on, potentially making it harder to get a loan. Mortgage brokers were also a key focus of the report, with Hayne recommending that the current commission based system be replaced with an upfront fee paid by home loan applicants, as well as an obligation for brokers to act in their clients best interests.

A recent decision in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has examined whether a premises primarily used for the production, packing and storage of goods sold online fell within the definition of ‘retail premises’. In Bulk Powders Pty Ltd v Seicon Pty Ltd [2018] VCAT 2000, the tenant used the property in question to create and store health supplements that it mostly sold online, however customers also had the option of picking up their products from the premises itself. Notably, only about 5% of sales were conducted in this way. Whether the property was being used for retail purposes was a key issue, as the lease in question specifically stated that the tenant could ‘produce, package and store online health supplements (not retail).’

Ultimately the VCAT held that the premises was not being used for a retail purpose. Weight was given to the fact that generally the premises was not open to the public, and there was no advertising or signage indicating the property was a retailer.

The NSW Government has passed the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Amendment Bill 2018, that will make many changes to the operation of security of payment (SOP) practices in the construction industry. An important change includes the removal of reference dates, instead allowing a payment claim to be served from the last day of the month in which the construction work was first carried out or an earlier date as specified in the contract. Other changes include the insertion of a variety of new offences and increased penalties for non-compliance, a code of practice, a reduction of the maximum time for payment from 30 to 20 business days, and the creation of an express right to withdraw from an adjudication application.

In the wake of the Opal Tower scare in Sydney, the NSW government has announced a new compliance operation that will see 25 to 30 per cent of building certification work audited every year. Any certifiers that are found to have acted negligently, breached the industry’s code of conduct or engaged in corrupt conduct will be banned from working from new strata developments for 12 months as a result of the new scheme.