Alta Vale Residential Pty Ltd (In Liq) (Rec Apptd) v STM123 Pty Ltd

[2026] NSWSC 882

Supreme Court of NSW

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

1. CONTRACTS — where agreements for construction of various developments for costs plus margin — whether oral agreement to vary level of margin — terms of agreement — identity of contracting parties — quantum of costs and margin due under contracts
1. CONTRACTS — termination — whether contracts repudiated by builder or by developer — whether breach of restraint provisions by developer — whether contracts validly terminated by developer
1. BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION — Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) — where payment claims served by builder — where builder purported to suspend works — where developer completed works through related company — whether suspension of works was in accordance with provisions of Act — whether builder entitled to lost profits
1. BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION — Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) — Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) — where rectification order issued in respect of various defects — where developer incurred costs of rectifying defects — whether expert evidence established defects in works — whether builder liable for costs of rectification

Where parties agree to a reconciliation of costs calculated on a particular margin basis, that agreement fixes the quantum of costs but does not compromise a disputed claim for a higher margin rate, where the reconciliation process expressly reserved the margin dispute.
A purported suspension of works under SOPA s 27 is invalid where the notice of intention to suspend is served before the due date for the progress payment under s 11(1A) has passed, and where the notice states an immediate suspension rather than an intention to suspend as required by s 15(2)(b).
An individual who supervises, coordinates or project manages construction work owes a duty of care under DBPA s 37(1) to the landowner, even where the construction contract is with a corporate entity — the statutory use of 'person' rather than 'practitioner' is a deliberate legislative choice (following Boulus Constructions and Kazzi v KR Properties).