Alta Vale Residential Pty Ltd (In Liq) (Rec Apptd) v STM123 Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 882 considers whether an individual project manager owes a duty of care under section 37 of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW).
In issue
- In Alta Vale Residential Pty Ltd (In Liq) (Rec Apptd) v STM123 Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 882, the Supreme Court of New South Wales was called upon to consider whether section 37 of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) (DBPA) permitted the piercing of the corporate veil to impose a duty of care on an individual who was project managing construction work being undertaken by a corporate entity which had separately contracted to carry out that work.
The background
Thomas Cull was the effective owner and controller of a company which had been contracted to carry out, and did carry out, certain construction work for Blank Super Pty Ltd (Blank Super), the owner of a property located on Curlewis Street in Bondi, NSW (Curlewis St Project).
From about 26 November 2020, Mr Cull also acted as the project manager for the Curlewis St Project.
On 10 December 2020, approximately two weeks after Mr Cull stepped into his project management role, the neighbouring property of the Curlewis St Project site subsided and partially collapsed. The collapse allegedly caused Blank Super to suffer certain loss and damage, including a loss of rent as a result of a Stop Work Order that was issued by the local council, which it claimed from Mr Cull.
A question arose as to whether Mr Cull, as the person responsible for supervising the works on the Curlewis St Project, owed a duty of care to Blank Super pursuant to section 37 of the DBPA and, if so, whether he breached this duty.
The decision at trial
A key issue was whether Mr Cull was 'a person who carrie[d] out construction work', within the meaning of section 37(1) of the DBPA.
Although it was submitted that section 37 of the DBPA was incapable of application to Mr Cull – on the basis that section 37 did not permit the piercing of the corporate veil to impose a duty of care on an individual who was project managing works which were being undertaken by a corporate entity which had separately contracted to carry out those works – that submission was rejected.
In rejecting that submission, the Court found that Mr Cull was, from 26 November 2020, supervising, coordinating, or project managing the work on the Curlewis St Project, or otherwise had substantive control over the carrying out of the work on the Curlewis St Project. Mr Cull was therefore a person carrying out 'construction work' within the meaning of section 36 of the DBPA and, as such, owed a duty to Blank Super, as the owner of the subject property, pursuant to section 37(1) of the DBPA.
In finding that Mr Cull also breached that duty, the Court noted that a reasonable person in Mr Cull’s position – being, someone who was project managing the works at the Curlewis St Project – would have taken steps to provide a suitable and engineered shoring, underpinning, or bracing system to support the neighbour’s building structures, consistent with advice which had been provided. In addition, the Court found that a reasonable person in Mr Cull’s position would have ceased works on the Curlewis St Project after being warned of the foreseeable risk of collapse of the neighbouring property and would have taken steps to investigate and address this risk. In circumstances where Mr Cull failed to take such steps, which led to the partial collapse of the neighbouring property, Mr Cull breached his duty of care pursuant to section 37(1) of the DBPA.
Implications for you
This case follows a number of other decisions (such as Boulus Constructions Pty Ltd v Warrumbungle Shire Council (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1368 and Kapila v Monument Building Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 1506 to name just two examples) that confirm that the statutory duty of care under section 37 of the DBPA is not confined to the corporate entity that entered into the relevant construction contract.
Close attention must therefore be paid to the roles, responsibilities and job descriptions of all relevant individuals who are supervising, coordinating, project managing or otherwise having substantive control over the carrying out of construction works. The mere involvement of a corporate entity (in and of itself) will not be sufficient to shield an individual from the statutory duty.
No doubt construction professionals and their advisors / brokers would be reviewing the recent spate of cases on the potential personal liability of a director / supervisor to ensure their insurance program provides adequate protection.
Alta Vale Residential Pty Ltd (In Liq) (Rec Apptd) v STM123 Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 882
