In Queensland, in cases of pure economic loss arising from latent building defects, the cause of action for limitation purposes accrues when the latent defect first becomes known or manifest in the sense of being discoverable by reasonable diligence, following Hawkins v Clayton as developed in Pullen. The appearance of physical damage (such as cracking) does not necessarily start the limitation period running if the plaintiff, acting with reasonable diligence, could not have discovered the link between the damage and the underlying design defect. However, Holmes JA's dissent reveals a live question as to whether 'manifest' requires only the appearance of physical damage or also discoverability of the causal link to the defect. Summary judgment on a limitation defence will be refused where there are disputed factual issues as to when the defect became discoverable.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 17 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 17 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.