Articles

Residential building disputes require more than an assessment of defective workmanship. An owner must identify the correct respondent, the appropriate forum, the applicable time limits and the prospects of recovering the cost of rectification. A regulatory complaint, an insurance claim and civil proceedings serve different purposes. Sometimes all three require attention.

The ACT has avenues for resolving these disputes, but they should not be described simply by importing Victoria’s institutional arrangements. Nor is it accurate to assume that the ACT has neither enforcement powers nor a statutory residential dispute framework. The differences are more specific, and some have significant consequences for litigation strategy.

Comparison with Victoria

Victoria has a specialist domestic building dispute pathway. The Building and Plumbing Commission (BPC) now administers the conciliation service formerly known as Domestic Building Dispute Resolution Victoria. Eligible disputes may proceed through conciliation, with binding dispute resolution orders or a certificate available where appropriate. VCAT’s specialist building jurisdiction continues, although its former Building and Property List is now described as the Land and Environment Division. 

The legislative foundation is Part 5 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic). Section 56 generally requires a certificate of conciliation before a domestic building work dispute is brought to VCAT, subject to exceptions, including specified urgent applications. Section 57 makes VCAT chiefly responsible for domestic building disputes and provides for a stay of qualifying court proceedings on a party’s application. That rule is subject to qualifications, including federal subject matter that VCAT cannot determine. 

Victoria also has a Building Cases List in the County Court. Its existence does not make the County Court and VCAT interchangeable destinations for every homeowner. Jurisdiction, the pleaded causes of action and the statutory stay provisions must be considered before proceedings are issued. 

The ACT’s published pathways instead direct ordinary civil claims to ACAT, the Magistrates Court or the Supreme Court, depending on jurisdiction and the amount claimed. They do not identify a counterpart to Victoria’s specialist building list structure. That is a difference in the organisation of dispute resolution, rather than an absence of remedies. 

Where does an ACT homeowner go to resolve a residential building dispute?

The practical starting point is to distinguish a request for regulatory intervention from a claim for a private remedy.

For building or planning compliance concerns, the ACT Government directs owners to their building certifier and Access Canberra. For contractual disagreements, it identifies negotiation, the Conflict Resolution Service, ACAT and Access Canberra’s fair trading service as potential avenues. The owner should first put the complaint to the builder in writing, identifying the work, the alleged problem and the response sought. 

For an unresolved civil claim, the usual monetary pathways are:

• ACAT: civil claims of $25,000 or less. A larger claim may be heard with the parties’ written agreement, or an applicant may abandon the excess. ACAT expressly recognises building defect disputes and may require a Scott schedule setting out the disputed items. 
• ACT Magistrates Court: ordinarily claims above $25,000 and up to $250,000. The Court identifies ss 257 and 266A of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 as relevant to its monetary jurisdiction. [6]
• ACT Supreme Court: unlimited civil monetary jurisdiction, making it the ordinary court destination for claims exceeding the Magistrates Court ceiling. 

These amounts are a starting point. The relief sought and any special statutory jurisdiction must also be checked. An owners corporation’s dispute with a builder, for example, should not automatically be treated as an internal unit titles dispute merely because apartments are involved.

Abandoning part of a claim deserves particular care: the convenience of a lower-value forum must be weighed against the recovery being surrendered. Equally, the contract price is not necessarily the amount of the claim. A properly supported assessment of rectification costs and other recoverable loss is needed before choosing the forum.

The ACT’s statutory residential dispute framework

Part 6A of the Building Act 2004 (ACT) provides a residential building dispute framework, including an administrator and dispute resolution processes. It is therefore incorrect to say that the ACT has never legislated a dedicated scheme. 

However, legislation and an operational service are different things. ACT Government reform reporting has described work to operationalise the framework, while its public complaints guidance directs owners to the existing pathways discussed above. Those sources do not establish that a generally available Part 6A intake service is operating as at this article’s research date. Access Canberra should confirm availability before an owner relies on that route. 

The sound comparison is that Victoria has an identifiable operational conciliation and specialist tribunal determination pathway; the ACT’s statutory framework must be distinguished from the remedies and services an owner can presently access.

Does the ACT Government have enforcement powers?

Yes. The Construction Occupations Registrar has substantive powers under the Construction Occupations (Licensing) Act 2004 (ACT).

Ss 34-38 govern rectification orders. Section 38 permits orders requiring rectification, demolition and the provision of compliant construction services, or the commencement or completion of specified work. Section 39 provides for emergency rectification orders. Ss 40-42 address non-compliance and further action. In appropriate circumstances, the regime also reaches directors and other specified persons: see ss 35(3), 39A and 39B. These powers have statutory preconditions and are not automatic upon a complaint. 

A regulator’s enforcement decision does not itself determine every contractual entitlement or compensate an owner for every loss. The practical question is whether the owner needs compliance action, damages, completion of work, or a combination. Regulatory engagement should not be treated as a substitute for assessing a civil claim and its deadline.

Building certifiers and occupancy certification

Victoria uses the statutory expression relevant building surveyor. The building surveyor performs the project’s statutory building surveying functions and ordinarily issues the occupancy permit or certificate of final inspection. Section 43 of the Building Act 1993 (Vic) deals with the decision on an occupancy permit application. 

In the ACT, the comparable project role is the certifier, commonly called the building certifier; the practitioner is a licensed building surveyor. ACT Government guidance identifies the certifier’s functions as issuing building approval and the commencement notice, conducting certification inspections and issuing the certificate of completion.

The subsequent occupancy decision is distinct. Section 69 of the Building Act 2004 places the certificate of occupancy function with the Construction Occupations Registrar. The certifier’s completion certificate under section 48 is a separate document. 

Owners should therefore obtain both the certification records and the occupancy documentation. They should not assume that the officer who inspected the work also issued the final occupancy authorisation. Nor should occupancy certification be confused with a contractual assurance that every aspect of the work is defect-free. Victoria expressly distinguishes suitability for occupation from proof of full statutory compliance in section 46. 

Limitation periods

Victoria

Section 134(1) of the Building Act 1993 generally prevents a building action being brought more than ten years after the occupancy permit, or, if none was issued, the certificate of final inspection. Ss 129-130 define the relevant scope. 

The cladding extension is conditional. Section 134(2) allows qualifying cladding building actions more than ten but less than fifteen years after the relevant certificate, where the ordinary bar fell on or after 16 July 2019 and before 1 December 2023. Those are expiry dates, not a window for issuing occupancy permits. Section 134(2A) also recognises extensions under section 77 of the VCAT Act. 

ACT

Section 142 of the Building Act 2004 (ACT) sets a ten-year building-action limit, measured first from the completion certificate; failing that, the last certifier inspection; failing both, first occupation or use. Subsection (2) adds a separate trigger associated with the end of a certifier’s appointment. Subsection (3) preserves shorter limitation periods under other Territory laws. 

Section 11 of the Limitation Act 1985 (ACT) ordinarily provides six years from accrual of the cause of action. Accrual requires analysis of the particular claim: breach of contract and negligence should not simply be assumed to share the same starting date. Section 40 provides a discretionary extension mechanism for latent property damage and associated economic loss. It is not a general promise of fifteen years to sue, nor should an owner assume it displaces a separate Building Act bar. 

There is also the statutory warranty period. Section 88(4) of the Building Act 2004 (ACT) read with regulation 38 of the Building (General) Regulation 2008 (ACT), provides six years for structural elements and two years for non-structural elements, measured from the statutory completion day. The regulation’s “structural” definition includes external wall components, including weatherproofing. These warranty periods must be distinguished from the limitation period for commencing a particular cause of action. 

The ACT therefore requires several dates to be checked together. A ten-year building-action provision does not necessarily leave an owner ten years to bring every claim. A complaints process should not be assumed to stop any relevant clock.

Proportionate liability: are ACT consumers exempt?

Under section 107B(3)(b) of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), a consumer claim is excluded from Chapter 7A. Section 107C principally requires a claim by an individual concerning goods or services supplied for personal, domestic or household use, subject to its exclusions. An owners corporation or company should not assume it meets that definition. 

But there is a separate building-action apportionment regime in ss 140-141 of the Building Act 2004. 

The judicial treatment of that regime is critical. In Hyblewski v Bellerive Homes Pty Ltd [2019] ACTSC 44 at [123]-[124], the Supreme Court explained, following Dunn v Hanson Australasia Pty Ltd [2017] ACTSC 169, that section 141 permits apportionment between defendants. After the proceedings against the builder had been discontinued, only one defendant remained against whom the relevant finding could be made; section 141 apportionment was consequently unavailable. 

The ACT consumer exclusion therefore cannot safely be presented as a blanket exemption from all proportionate liability in residential construction litigation. The applicable regime must be identified before advising an owner about recovery or a defendant about joinder.

How does an owner navigate the consumer exemption?

The analysis should proceed claim by claim. First, identify the claimant and the purpose for which the goods or services were supplied. A residential address alone does not establish a consumer claim under section 107C. An individual homeowner, an investor, a company and an owners corporation cannot simply be placed in the same category. The facts must support the statutory definition and address its exclusions. 

Second, identify each cause of action, the loss claimed and the basis on which each proposed defendant is said to be liable. If the claim is a consumer claim, record why Chapter 7A is excluded by section 107B(3)(b). Then separately ask whether the damages claim is a building action within section 140 and whether section 141 applies. Passing the consumer test answers the Chapter 7A question; it does not answer the Building Act question. 

Third, assess the parties and recovery before joining, settling with or discontinuing against anyone. Hyblewski demonstrates why the defendants remaining in the proceedings matter under section 141. It is not a universal instruction to sue only one participant: liability must still be proved, and settlement terms, releases, costs and the remaining defendant’s ability to satisfy a judgment require separate attention. Where Chapter 7A applies, its treatment of absent concurrent wrongdoers and its notice provisions must instead be considered on their own terms. 

The practical result should be a written assessment identifying the regime applicable to each claim, the parties required for the proposed relief and the risk that part of the loss will remain unrecovered. The consumer exemption is a point for legal analysis, not an assurance of full recovery.

In Victoria, Part IVAA of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) contains no equivalent general consumer-claim exemption. Ss 24AF-24AI govern apportionable claims, including specified reasonable-care and misleading-conduct claims. This does not mean every contractual or statutory warranty claim is automatically apportionable. 

Must every concurrent wrongdoer be joined?

The ACT’s general regime permits consideration of an absent concurrent wrongdoer: ss 107F(2)(b) and 107F(4). That proposition must not be transferred uncritically to the separate Building Act regime discussed above. 

Victoria’s section 24AI(3) generally prohibits consideration of a non-party’s comparative responsibility, unless the person is absent because they have died or, for a corporation, have been wound up. Mere insolvency is not the stated exception. Section 24AL addresses joinder; section 24AE defines defendant broadly enough to include another party joined otherwise than as plaintiff. 

This is more precise than saying that every conceivable participant must be joined before apportionment can operate. The issue is whose comparative responsibility the decision-maker is legally permitted to consider. In either jurisdiction, a litigation strategy needs to distinguish a defendant, a third party and a person who remains outside the proceedings.

Must a defendant identify other potential wrongdoers?

ACT section 107G concerns a defendant with reasonable grounds to believe another person may be a concurrent wrongdoer. Failure to provide prompt written particulars of identity and involvement can attract costs, including indemnity costs, where the claimant unnecessarily incurs costs through ignorance of that person’s possible responsibility. It is not a duty to identify every imaginable defendant in every building claim. 

Victoria’s Part IVAA has no direct counterpart to section 107G. That does not dispense with pleading, disclosure or procedural obligations arising elsewhere. The sound comparison concerns this particular statutory notice-and-costs mechanism. 

Is residential building insurance mandatory?

ACT

Yes, for qualifying insurable residential building work. The framework includes ss 37(4), 84, 87 and 90 of the Building Act and regulation 37 of the Building (General) Regulation. The regulation excludes work costing less than $12,000 from Part 6. 

The ACT Government describes mandatory cover for houses and apartment buildings of no more than three storeys, excluding a car park, through an authorised insurer or approved fidelity fund. The builder obtains the cover before the commencement process, and the certifier checks it. This is not universal cover for all residential development, particularly higher-rise buildings. 

For current settings, regulation ss 39-41 specify $200,000 minimum insurance cover, a five-year insurance period and a 180-day claim period. The relevant statutory triggers and the particular policy or fidelity certificate must also be checked. The Government explains that the claim-notification period starts when the owner becomes aware of the builder’s insolvency, death or disappearance. Mandatory cover should not be mistaken for insurance responding to every defect while a builder remains trading. 

Victoria

The comparison must now distinguish older DBI policies from the Home Warranty scheme operating from 1 July 2026.

BPC guidance states that older DBI generally applied to eligible domestic work over $16,000 and responded to specified builder events, commonly death, disappearance or insolvency. Existing DBI policies do not convert into Home Warranty. For eligible contracts signed on or after 1 July 2026, Home Warranty applies to eligible work exceeding $20,000 and provides broader assistance where a builder fails or refuses to complete or rectify work the subject of a Rectification Order, subject to the scheme’s requirements. The stated maximum assistance is $400,000 per home. 

The new statutory scheme is in Part 9A of the Building Act 1993, including section 137O concerning payment of premiums. Contract dates, building eligibility and transitional arrangements must therefore be checked before selecting the insurance route. 

Preparing an ACT building claim

A useful first file contains the contract and variations, approved plans, certifier appointment and inspection records, completion and occupancy certificates, insurance documents, correspondence and dated photographs. Technical advice should identify the defect, its cause, an appropriate rectification method and a supported cost.

Before proceedings, the owner and adviser should then settle four questions: who has the right to claim; against whom; for what relief; and by when. This is particularly important for common property, multiple responsible practitioners and claims involving an insolvent builder.

Conclusion: limitation and apportionment require particular care

An ACT homeowner has avenues for regulatory intervention, negotiation, court or tribunal proceedings and, for eligible claims, insurance or fidelity fund assistance. But identifying an available forum is only the beginning. The published ACT pathways do not identify a dedicated building list equivalent to Victoria’s specialist arrangements, and the owner must navigate several interacting statutory regimes. 

In our view, the limitation provisions present a particularly dangerous trap for an owner who assumes that “ten years” is the time available to sue. The ACT position cannot safely be reduced to one period running from one certificate. Section 142 has alternative and additional triggers and expressly preserves shorter periods under other Territory laws. Accrual under the Limitation Act, the statutory warranty periods and any available extension require separate examination. The apparent simplicity of a ten-year provision can conceal an earlier deadline. 

The practical response is an early, documented limitation analysis for every proposed claim and defendant. Obtain the completion certificate, inspection history, occupation records and any notice ending a certifier’s appointment; establish the relevant breach and damage dates; and distinguish warranty duration from the deadline for commencing proceedings. Where a date or legal characterisation remains uncertain, investigate it urgently and plan around the earliest reasonably arguable deadline while that uncertainty is resolved. Negotiations, a regulatory complaint or an insurance inquiry should never be assumed to preserve the right to sue.

The consumer exemption presents a second trap. An owner may correctly establish that Chapter 7A of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act does not apply, yet still confront the Building Act’s separate apportionment provisions. Advice that stops at “consumers are exempt” is therefore incomplete. The necessary sequence is to establish consumer status, classify each claim, examine ss 140-141 independently, and assess the consequences of joinder, settlement and discontinuance before those decisions are made. 

For the homeowner, these are questions about whether a claim survives and how much of a proven loss can actually be recovered. Careful analysis of time limits and apportionment belongs at the start of an ACT residential building dispute, before procedural or settlement choices narrow the available remedies.

About the authors

Justin Cotton is a Director of Lovegrove & Cotton and heads the firm’s practitioner advocacy practice. For nearly 20 years he has represented builders, building surveyors and building certifiers in disciplinary proceedings, and he appears at VCAT and NCAT. His practice is cross-jurisdictional: he is instructed by building practitioners and small to medium enterprises in NSW, Victoria, the ACT and Queensland. He chairs the HIA Victorian Industrial Relations and Legal Services Committee, is admitted in Australia and New Zealand, and was named in Global Law Experts 2024 for construction law in Australia.

Tsigereda Lovegrove is a Construction and Planning Lawyer and Manager at Lovegrove & Cotton. She conducts matters in VCAT, NCAT, the County Court and Supreme Court, and the Building Appeals Board. She is a Board Member of the International Building Quality Centre and Secretary of its Dispute Resolution Coalition, and an Adjunct Fellow at Southern Cross University. She was named in Global Law Experts 2024 for construction law in Australia, and advises in English and Amharic.

Disclaimer

This article is general information only and is not legal advice. It reflects the law and regulator guidance in Victoria and the ACT as at October 2026. Obtain advice specific to your situation before acting.

Image Acknowledgements:

The digital renders used in this article were developed collaboratively by Lovegrove & Cotton and ChatGPT