Keep­ing you up-to-date with the lat­est legal devel­op­ments, leg­is­la­tion changes and case precedents.

All pub­li­ca­tions relat­ing to ​‘Mark Glynn’

When is entry into a lot with­out the lot own­er’s con­sent per­mit­ted to car­ry out repair work to com­mon prop­er­ty? When there is an emergency

When is entry into a lot with­out the lot own­er’s con­sent per­mit­ted to car­ry out repair work to com­mon prop­er­ty? When there is an emergency McArthur v The Own­ers – Stra­ta Plan No. 30924 [2025] NSW­CATCD 207 This case serves as a use­ful guide to own­ers cor­po­ra­tion when con­sid­er­ing access­ing a lot under sec­tion 122(3) of the…

A High­er Evi­den­tiary Bur­den for Work Orders: The Prac­ti­cal Impli­ca­tions of The Own­ers – Stra­ta Plan No 102171 v Ceerose Pty Ltd [2025] NSW­CATCD 137

The deci­sion in The Own­ers – Stra­ta Plan No 102171 v Ceerose Pty Ltd; Zone Q Mil­sons Point Devel­op­ment Pty Ltd v Ceerose Pty Ltd; Ceerose Pty Ltd v South­ern Cross Cli­mate Con­trol Pty Ltd [2025] NSW­CATCD 137 is a sig­nif­i­cant devel­op­ment in under­stand­ing the evi­den­tiary oblig­a­tions of an appli­cant when seek­ing a work order under…

Strata Plan 92183 v Samdora Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 406 | 'Substantive Control' over Works & s37 of the DB&P Act

In this case, the plain­tiff (Stra­ta Plan 92183) brought pro­ceed­ings alleg­ing defec­tive res­i­den­tial build­ing work in rela­tion to 9 town hous­es locat­ed in Manger­ton, NSW.Rel­e­vant­ly SP92183 claimed that both the builder’s direc­tor (Mr Nas­sif) and the developer’s direc­tor (Mr Chah­wan) had both breached their duty to exer­cise rea­son­able care to avoid eco­nom­ic…

No Appor­tion­ment for Sec­tion 37 DBP Act Claims even where the alleged con­cur­rent wrong­do­er is not a sub­con­trac­tor of the builder

Kapi­la v Mon­u­ment Build­ing Group Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 1306 con­firms that builders and nom­i­nat­ed super­vi­sors can be held ful­ly liable for build­ing defects under sec­tion 37 of the Design and Build­ing Prac­ti­tion­ers Act 2020 (NSW), even where oth­er pro­fes­sion­als, such as engi­neers, archi­tects or cer­ti­fiers, also con­tributed to the defects…

Tem­po­rary Dis­con­for­mi­ty in Build­ing Defects: Myth, Not Law

The ​“tem­po­rary dis­con­for­mi­ty” argu­ment in con­struc­tion dis­putes sug­gests that defec­tive work iden­ti­fied before prac­ti­cal com­ple­tion is not a breach while the builder retains a con­trac­tu­al right to rec­ti­fy. NSW courts have con­sis­tent­ly reject­ed this propo­si­tion, con­firm­ing that defec­tive work con­sti­tutes a breach at the time it is performed.The notion of ​“tem­po­rary dis­con­for­mi­ty” is some­times…

When can an own­er com­mence pro­ceed­ings in the 6 months after the expiry of the statu­to­ry war­ran­ty periods

When a defect claim emerges in the final six months of statu­to­ry war­ran­ty peri­ods, own­ers may still have time to act. This update explains when pro­ceed­ings can be com­menced under the Home Build­ing Act 1989 (NSW), fol­low­ing recent Supreme Court guidance.Own­ers cor­po­ra­tions often dis­cov­er defects in their build­ings in the last 6 months…

Know Your Con­struc­tion Con­tract — A Cau­tion­ary ​‘Time Bar’ Tale from West­con­nex M5 Motor­way Tun­nel Project Sydney

The NSW Court of Appeal has con­firmed that Own­ers Cor­po­ra­tions can seek freez­ing orders to stop devel­op­ers using SPV struc­tures from divest­ing assets, strength­en­ing recov­ery prospects in defect litigation.Con­struc­tion con­tracts often include detailed pro­vi­sions set­ting out pre­scribed regimes for the pro­vi­sion of claims. Such regimes pro­vide for the form and detail…

Get in touch

If you have any queries about a legal issue or wish to talk to someone about a legal matter please get in touch and we'll contact you promptly.

*Mandatory information