In The Owners – Strata Plan No 94624 v G & T Younan Constructions Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 94, the Supreme Court entered judgment against a builder and a developer for more than $2.6 million, exclusive of costs, in proceedings neither defendant turned up to defend. The judgment is short on legal controversy and long on practical warning — and it is worth reading from both sides of the record.
The proceedings
The owners corporation of a residential strata building at Dee Why sued the builder and the developer over defective work, pleading breach of the statutory warranties implied by s 18B of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) and a duty of care under the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW). The owners corporation brought the claim in its representative capacity under s 106 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW), with the benefit of s 24 of the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015 (NSW) in respect of the developer.
The defendants filed a defence. What they did not do was prosecute it. On the plaintiff’s account, they did not comply with the Court’s directions or the applicable practice note, did not participate in the court-ordered expert conclave (which was listed on three separate occasions and did not proceed), lost their legal representation shortly before the hearing, and then did not appear at trial.
Judgment in the defendants’ absence
Rule 29.7 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) gives the Court a discretion where a party does not appear at trial: it may proceed with the trial generally or as to any particular claim for relief, or it may adjourn. Satisfied that the defendants had received ample notice of the hearing date, the Court proceeded.
Non-appearance did not relieve the plaintiff of its onus. The owners corporation still had to prove breach and quantum. But it did so on an evidentiary record that no one contradicted, tested or cross-examined — and, critically, the defendants’ own lay and expert material was never read, because there was no one in Court to read it. Evidence on the file is not evidence before the Court.
The Court accepted the plaintiff’s expert evidence, noting that it had been prepared by properly qualified experts who had turned their minds to and complied with the expert witness code of conduct in Schedule 7 to the UCPR.
The award
- $1,718,000 in rectification damages
- $945,205 in interest, calculated from 2016 under s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
- Costs
The interest component is the number that should concentrate the mind. It represents roughly 55 cents for every dollar of actual rectification cost, generated by nothing more than the passage of time between when the loss crystallised and when the matter was finally determined. A defendant who treats a defects claim as something to be outlasted is not deferring the liability. It is compounding it.
What this means if you are defending
Three points, none of them novel, all of them expensive to relearn:
- Disengagement is not a strategy. The Court’s discretion under r 29.7 is real and it is exercised. A defendant who stops attending does not stall the proceedings; it simply forfeits the right to shape them.
- Conclave and practice note compliance is the defence. In a defects matter, the conclave and joint report are where a defendant’s expert narrows the plaintiff’s scope and pressure-tests its costings. Miss the conclave, miss the timetable, and you arrive at the hearing with nothing to put against the plaintiff’s quantum.
- Retain and instruct early. Losing representation on the eve of trial is usually a symptom rather than a cause — of unfunded defence costs, of a solvency problem, or of a client who has disengaged. Each of those is more cheaply addressed twelve months out than twelve days out.