LC Lawyers

Liability for water that flows from one property and causes damage to another person’s property is an issue of increasing prevalence in Victoria, as apartment living becomes more common in the State. The owner of the property from which the water originates may be held liable for the resulting damage, whether the property is owned by a private individual or by an owners corporation, provided that the relevant legal test for liability is met.

In Victoria, the key legislative provision is section 16 of the Water Act 1989 (“the Act”) (“Vic), which reads as follows:

Section 16 of the Water Act 1989 – Liability arising out of the flow of water

   “(1)     If—

        (a)     there is a flow of water from the land of a person onto any other land; and

        (b)     that flow is not reasonable; and

        (c)     the water causes—

              (i)     injury to any other person; or

              (ii)     damage to the property (whether real or personal) of any other person; or

              (iii)     any other person to suffer economic loss—

the person who caused the flow is liable to pay damages to that other person in respect of that injury, damage or loss.”

“Flow” is defined in section 3 of the Act: 

“’Flow’ in relation to water includes discharge, release, escape, percolation, seepage and passage, and includes both surface and underground flow”.

Section 20 of the Act sets out the factors for determining whether a flow is reasonable, having regard to all relevant circumstances, including the following matters:

“(1)     In determining whether a flow of water is reasonable or not reasonable, account must be taken of all the circumstances including the following matters—

        (a)     whether or not the flow, or the act or works that caused the flow, was or were authorised;

        (b)     the extent to which any conditions or requirements imposed under this Act in relation to an authorisation were complied with;

        (c)     whether or not the flow conforms with any guidelines or principles published by the Minister with respect to the drainage of the area;

        (d)     whether or not account was taken at the relevant time of the likely impact of the flow on drainage in the area having regard to the information then reasonably available about the cumulative effects on drainage of works and activities in the area;

        (e)     the uses to which the lands concerned and any other lands in the vicinity are put;

        (f)     the contours of the lands concerned;

        (g)     whether the water which flowed was—

              (i)     brought onto the land from which it flowed; or

              (ii)     collected, stored or concentrated on that land; or

              (iii)     extracted from the ground on that land—

and if so, for what purpose and with what degree of care this was done;”

Whether a flow has occurred, and whether it is reasonable under the relevant provisions of the Act, is typically not contentious. However, determining the point at which ownership lies, particularly in relation to the property from which the damaging flow originates can be more complex.

Private and common property divisions

In Victoria, the Subdivision (Registrar’s Requirements) Regulations 2011 reg 10 prescribes how the boundaries between common and private property are determined, as follows:

   “ (1)     A boundary may be shown on a plan by reference to a building.    

    (2)     Any building or part of a building that defines a boundary must be identifiable from the plan.

    (3)     If a boundary on a plan is defined by reference to a building or part of a building, the plan must specify whether the boundary is one or more of the following—

        (a)     Interior Face;

        (b)     Median (floor and ceiling);

        (c)     Median (wall, window, door, balustrade);

        (d)     Exterior Face;

        (e)     in some other location.

    (4)     Unless otherwise specified on the plan, the location of any building boundary defined as—

Interior Face lies along the interior face of any wall, floor (upper surface of elevated floor if any), ceiling (underside of suspended ceiling if any), window, door or balustrade of the relevant part of the building. Any internal coverings, waterproof membranes and fixtures attached to walls, floors, and ceilings are included within the relevant parcel;”

Balcony Leaks Causing Damage to Another’s Property

Balconies can present a more complex ownership issue, as the determination often hinges on the purpose and location of the building element that has failed and caused damage. In most cases, the failure relates to floor tiles or a compromised waterproofing membrane.

The question of ownership of balcony tiles and waterproofing membranes was directly addressed in Owners Corporation PS508732B v Fisher [2014] VCAT 1358. In that case, the Tribunal held that, for a conventional plan of subdivision, the waterproofing membrane fell within the boundaries of the individual lot. Accordingly, it was deemed private property and the responsibility of the lot owner.

Across most jurisdictions, there is little doubt that balcony floor tiles, particularly where issues such as lifting, cracking, drumming, or delamination are evident are similarly classified as private property in most cases. 

By contrast, the structural slab beneath the balcony, which serves a purely functional, load-bearing purpose, is typically regarded as part of the common property infrastructure.

Obligations to Repair

Subsection 16(5) of the Water Act 1989 provides:

“(5) If the causing of, or the interference with, the flow (as the case requires) was given rise to by works constructed or any other act done or omitted to be done on any land at a time before the current occupier became the occupier of the land, the current occupier is liable to pay damages in respect of the injury, damage or loss if the current occupier has failed to take any steps reasonably available to prevent the causing of, or the interference with, the flow (as the case requires) being so given rise to.”

The key words here are “steps reasonably available.”

This provision was interpreted in Connors v Bodean International Pty Ltd (Real Property) [2008] VCAT 454 at [53], where the Tribunal stated:

“I find that ‘reasonable steps’ in the Act infers that the current occupier takes the necessary steps within a reasonable time… I would allow the Respondent a reasonable time to carry out investigations, assess the results and to implement measures to ensure the unreasonable flow is ceased.”

Two 2021 VCAT decisions have further clarified the obligation to take “reasonable steps.” In both cases, lot owners claimed compensation for water damage to their units, and liability was attributed to the Owners Corporations due to delay.

In Davies v Owners Corporation 1 PS414649K (Building and Property) [2019] VCAT 1159, the Applicants owned two apartments that were damaged by water entering through ceiling cavities into the living spaces. Evidence showed that the Owners Corporation had been aware of the leaks since at least 2008. The Tribunal, relying on Connors, found against the Owners Corporation and stated:

“… I consider that the words ‘steps reasonably available’ includes a requirement that the current occupier has a sufficient and reasonable time in which to carry out those steps after being given notice or constutive [sic] notice of the unreasonable flow is imputed. Further, that their liability in the event of them not taking reasonable steps to cease the flow after such notice is limited to the time from which such steps should reasonably have been taken.” [122]

In the matter of Dunn v Owners Corporation 446158A [2017] VCAT 1893, the Owners Corporation engaged a waterproofing contractor to carry out works recommended by a consulting engineer in early 2013. The contractor entered liquidation in early 2014, and the works remained incomplete due to a dispute over who was responsible for the rectification. The matter was ultimately heard in VCAT in late 2017.

Complicating the issue was the owner’s refusal to grant sufficient access for repairs. The owner indicated he would attend to the matter himself, after discovering an unknown gas pipe within the balcony slab, which further delayed remedial works. The Tribunal found:

“When deciding an owners corporation dispute, which is what is reflected in these two proceedings, the Tribunal must consider ‘the conduct of the parties’, but may make any order it considers fair, so long as it is made according to law… The conduct of both parties has contributed to delay, and so to exposure of unfinished works to the weather, and so in turn to the incurring of the costs identified in the previous paragraphs. Considering that conduct, I conclude that they contributed equally to it. Attempting to apportion responsibility in any other way would be artificial. So I consider it fair that each party should bear one-half of the cost.” [124]

Owners Corporation Responsibility

Under section 46 of the Owners Corporations Act 2006 (Vic), an owners corporation is responsible for the repair and maintenance of common property.

This obligation was examined in Guy v Owners Corporation 416326 [2018] VCAT 2027. In that case, the lot owner claimed that water had entered and damaged their apartment due to the owners corporation’s failure to maintain both the cladding façade and the owner’s balcony. While the precise source of the leak could not be definitively identified, the Tribunal found that the owners corporation’s failure to prevent water ingress into the lot was sufficient to justify an award of damages in favour of the owner.

The Tribunal stated:

“In view of the plethora of signs, warnings and portents which appeared before the OC with metronomic regularity throughout the life of the building, it is hard to see how the OC can assert that it is entitled to rely on section 16(5) of the Water Act 1989. It was clear, and the OC conceded, that it had notice of the possibility that water could flow from the façade into the applicant’s apartment.” [69]

Conclusion

It is essential that any property owner or owners corporation who becomes aware of a leak causing damage promptly seeks legal advice and acts on that advice without delay. Timely action is critical to mitigate damage and avoid potential liability.

By Lovegrove & Cotton

Disclaimer
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to Owners Corporations, building defects, or dispute resolution, please contact Lovegrove & Cotton at enquiries@lclawyers.com.au or call (03) 9600 4077.

Image Acknowledgements:

The digital renders used in this article were developed collaboratively by Lovegrove & Cotton and ChatGPT. The photo images that are not the digital renders are stock images sourced from Shutterstock.

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: , , , ,

The Building Appeals Board (‘BAB’) of Victoria is an independent specialist merits review tribunal established under Part 10 of the Building Act 1993 (VIC) (‘the Act’). The BAB is tasked with making determinations about building control matters under the Act. The BAB serves an important function as a review avenue for decisions made by statutory authorities under the Act, for certain disputes, for modifications in relation to certain regulations, and for certain determinations.

It is bespoke to the building industry and the fact that it is expert-led tribunal with board members usually either builders, building surveyors, fire safety engineers, quantity surveyors, structural and services engineers, access consultants, architects, town planners, construction lawyers, or consumer planners.[2]

1. Review of Decisions by Statutory Authorities

Under Part 10, Division 1, the Building Act outlines several grounds for application for review to the Building Appeals Board of a decision by a statutory Authority.

2. Review of Decisions in Relation to Building and Occupancy Permits

Section 138 provides that appeals may be brought to the BAB by either owners and purchasers of land[3] or reporting bodies[4] (such as the Metropolitan Fire Brigade) for certain decisions or actions taken by statutory authorities in relation to building and occupancy permits – this appeal mechanism is therefore relevant at stages prior to occupation.

Under Section 138, specifically, subsection 1, an appeal may be brought to the BAB for a decision to refuse, impose conditions on, amend or cancel, refuse an application to amend or cancel, a building permit, or a failure to make a decision to amend or cancel a permit within a reasonable time.[5] It follows that the BAB has jurisdiction with regard to building and occupancy permit-related decisions by a private or municipal building surveyor.

Subsection 2 concerns requests by building surveyors or reporting bodies to amend a permit application or to provide more information in regards to a permit. This provision would be relevant in cases where an RBS or reporting body considered the existing permit application fell short in some regard. An example would be adequate access for the Metropolitan Fire Brigade or the positioning of fire hydrants in multi-residential complexes.

3. Reviews of Directions to Fix Building Work

Under Division 2 of Part 4 of the Act, an RBS or the VBA may issue a direction to fix building work on the grounds there is failure to comply with the Act, Regulations or Building Code of Australia. A failure to comply with a direction gives rise to a pecuniary penalty. Such a direction is reviewable by the Building Appeals Board pursuant to Section 138A of the Act.

This review avenue would be of relevance where a builder has been served with a direction to fix but considers on reasonable grounds that the works are compliant and there has not been a breach of the Act, regulations, or code.

4. Reviews of Termination of RBS

As noted in an earlier article, which also discussed transfer of functions, a decision in regards to the termination of private building surveyor functions by the VBA under the Building Act 1993 is a reviewable decision pursuant to Section 140 of the Building Act 1993. The Building Appeals Board has jurisdiction in the event of a refusal, and an RBS or the relevant owner may apply for review of a refusal or failure of the VBA to allow the termination of RBS functions.

5. Protection Works Appeals

A common form of appeal at the BAB is in relation to protection works determinations by building surveyors regarding protection works or emergency protection works, or requests for further information by adjoining owners. An appeal made under Section 141 may be made by either an owner or adjoining owner.

6. Building Notices and Orders, and Emergency Orders

Another prevalent appeal is in regards to the service by either an RBS or MBS of a building notice or building order in relation to building works or an existing already complete building.[6] Review is also available in regards to Emergency Orders issued by Municipal Building Surveyors.

In the current environment with the proliferation of building compliance-related building notices and orders, including those concerning cladding, these appeals may be made in tandem with applications such as those under Section 160A for determinations in respect to building design, although often a cladding notice will contain a clause that it will not be enforced whilst a s160A application is on foot (without that clause, prudence would dictate a combination of a s142 appeal [so as to stay the effect of the BN or BO] and s160A application for determination).

7. Building Regulation

Section 144 of the Building Act provides that where the Building Regulations 2018 leave a matter to be determined by, or confer discretion on, a body or a person, an owner of a building or land may appeal to the Building Appeals Board in regards to the exercise of that discretion or the making of that determination.

For example, the Building Regulations provide that a report and consent is required from a relevant council in the event components of a building are proposed to project beyond street alignment[7] or a septic tank is proposed or building is proposed in an area prone to flooding,[8] or from a service authority (such as a water supply authority) if a building is proposed to be constructed over an easement,[9] and so forth. All of these determinations under the regulations are reviewable by the BAB pursuant to Section 144 of the Act.

8. Other Appeals

Other reviews include the refusal by an RBS or MBS for a person to be able to temporarily occupy a building, and the refusal of the VBA to appoint an adjudicator for purposes of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment 2002 (VIC).

9. Appeals Generally

BAB appeals are, according to the Act, “in the nature of a re-hearing.” This essentially means that the BAB is at liberty to “step into the shoes of the original decision maker” and consider matters not originally brought before the original decision maker.

A decision which is subject to a right of appeal to the BAB does not take effect until an appeal is heard and the decision is affirmed or until the end of the appeal period if there is no appeal made.[10]

There is also an option pursuant to Section 147 of the Building Act for a fast-track appeal, where one making an appeal may apply to the BAB, where urgency dictates, for the board to hear the matter within 2 days of application for fast-track. The BAB may refuse a fast-track application.

The BAB also has jurisdiction to hear matters in relation to disputes as between certain parties. The kind of disputes in which the BAB has jurisdiction are outlined in Part 10 Division 3, and include:

  • Disputes between owners and building surveyors in regards to the exercise by the RBS of inspection powers and powers of entry;[11]
  • Disputes between an owner and adjoining owner regarding the carrying out of emergency protection work;[12]
  • Disputes between an owner and adjoining owner regarding protection works insurance cover;[13]
  • Disputes between an owner and adjoining owner regarding a survey of the adjoining property (what is often referred to as a dilapidation report);[14]
  • Disputes between an owner and adjoining owner regarding expenses for the supervision of protection works;[15]
  • Any other disputes between an owner and adjoining owner in regards to the protection works regime under Part 7 of the Building Act 1993;[16]
  • Disputes between an owner and a relevant building surveyor as regards the building surveyor’s estimate of the cost of the work for which the permit is sought (building permit levy);[17]
  • Disputes concerning building works and the application and/or effect of building regulations as between owners, builders, building surveyors, and/or the authority;[18] and
  • Disputes between adjoining owners in regards to the construction and/or costs of party walls.[19]

It follows there are a range of disputes for which the BAB has jurisdiction to resolve, with many of them related to disputes as between adjoining owners especially with respect to protection works.

10. Determinations that May be Made by the BAB

There are other more miscellaneous kinds of proceedings under the BAB’s jurisdictions for which the BAB may make a determination and these include:

  • Determinations for compensation for loss or inconvenience suffered by an adjoining owner in regards to protection works (this is a discretional power and compensation is often a contentious matter);[20]
  • Determinations concerning modifications of building regulations or local laws (such as overshadowing, height restrictions etc.), which essentially are applications that certain regulations do not apply, or only apply with modifications, to the subject building;[21]
  • Determinations concerning modifications of access building regulations for persons with disabilities;[22] and
  • Determinations concerning building design compliance, on the application of an owner, purchaser, RBS, or the VBA (which are often relevant in terms of alternative solutions under the BCA).[23]

11. Types of Orders the BAB May Make

The BAB is not so confined in the kinds of orders it may make by virtue of the fact that it is able to ‘step into the shoes of the original decision maker.’ It is essentially given all of the powers of the original decision maker. Importantly, Section 161 provides that the BAB may “make any order that it considers appropriate in the circumstances.”

12. Appeals from the BAB

A decision or determination by the BAB is final and has legal effect. It is subject only to the inherent jurisdiction of the Victorian Supreme Court for review on an issue or question of law. Essentially this means if the BAB erred in law such that it acted outside of jurisdiction, the Victorian Supreme Court would upon application be able to quash the decision of the BAB, require it act in accordance with law, prohibit it from acting contrary to law, issue an injunction, or make a declaration, depending on the circumstances of the appeal.

Conclusion

It follows there are a range of decisions and disputes that give rise to the BAB having jurisdiction, alongside certain matters for determination under the Building Act 1993 (VIC). It is a unique jurisdiction that serves a very important regulatory oversight function in Victoria and is playing a great part in the state’s efforts to address the cladding crisis.

Lawyers within the firm have many years of experience with matters at the Building Appeals Board in a range of different matters including multiple noteworthy cladding determinations, building order and notice matters, protection works matters, building and occupancy permit disputes, and reviews of council decisions in regard to building regulation dispensations. In the emerging paradigm of a weaker economy and issues concerning building surveyor insurability, there is potential for reviews under Section 140 regarding RBS terminations to become more common.

If you are concerned about your options for review of decisions, like those discussed briefly in this piece, or if you are engaged in a building dispute, it is worthwhile discussing your options with an experienced construction lawyer. It is critical to be mindful of relevant time limits for applications for reviews to ensure one avoids prejudice flowing from a failure to respond to the likes of Building Orders and Notices.

Disclaimer

The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal advice related to building regulations and compliance, please consult a qualified construction lawyer.

Image Acknowledgements:

The digital renders used in this article were developed collaboratively by Lovegrove & Cotton and ChatGPT. The photo images that are not the digital renders are stock images sourced from Shutterstock.

Footnotes:

Source Article: https://lclawyers.com.au/users-guide-building-appeals-board/

[2] Building Appeals Board, About Us, accessed at https://www.buildingappeals.vic.gov.au/about
[3] Building Act 1993 (VIC), s 138(4).
[4] Ibid, s 138(5).
[5] Building Act 1993 (VIC), s 138(1).
[6] Building Act 1993 (VIC), s 142.
[7] See Building Regulations 2018, reg 109.
[8] Ibid, reg 153.
[9] Ibid, reg 130.
[10] Building Act 1993 (VIC), s 146.
[11] Ibid, s 150.
[12] Ibid, s 151.
[13] Ibid, s 152.
[14] Ibid, s 153.
[15] Ibid, s 154.
[16] Ibid, s 155.
[17] Ibid, s 156.
[18] Ibid, s 157.
[19] Ibid, s 158.
[20] Ibid, s 159.
[21] Ibid, s 160.
[22] Ibid, s 160B.
[23] Ibid, s 160A.

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A typical building contract outlines the agreement between the parties, including timelines, payment schedules, and ways to end the contract. Often, one party will send a “Notice of Intention to Terminate” to the other party if there has been a serious breach. This notice gives the other party a chance to fix the breach within a certain timeframe. If the problem is not addressed or the response is unsatisfactory, the contract may be terminated.

Important Note: Wrongfully terminating a contract can have serious legal consequences, so it is crucial to get legal advice to confirm whether you have valid grounds for termination. Even if the grounds are lawful, failing to follow the correct contractual procedure might still lead to a claim for wrongful termination.

Common issues like delays or cost overruns are often reasons for issuing a Notice of Intention to Terminate. However, in some cases, an owner may terminate a contract with just one notice under Section 41 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic) (the Act). This can apply in situations such as:

  • The contract price increasing by 15% or more since it was signed.
  • The contract not being completed within 1.5 times the agreed period.
  • The delay or cost increase was due to unforeseen circumstances that the builder could not have anticipated when the contract was made.

To end the contract under Section 41 of the Act, the owner must provide a signed notice to the builder explaining the reason for termination.

What Can Be Claimed After Termination?

Payment disputes are common in construction when a contract is terminated. The builder may claim payment for any unpaid work, while the owner might seek damages for delays or defects in the work. After termination, a builder is entitled to be paid for the work completed up to that point. This is known as quantum meruit, meaning “as much as they have earned.”

In the case of Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd [2019] HCA 32[5], the Court clarified that a builder may claim under quantum meruit but cannot recover more than the contract price for the work done. The decision limits how much builders can claim when a contract is terminated and ensures the agreed pricing mechanisms in the contract are not undermined.

Section 38 of the Act also requires a proper paper trail for variations to plans and specifications that affect the price. The Court found that under this section, builders could not claim for unpaid variations, even if the owner had repudiated the contract (this may not always be the case though).

Difference Between Termination Under Section 41 of the Act and Contractual Termination

As outlined in Section 41(7) of the Act, Section 39 of the Act does not apply to terminations under Section 41. While this is similar to the ruling in Mann v Patterson, Section 41 applies specifically to time or cost overruns due to unforeseen circumstances. It is often described as a “no-fault” provision, meaning the owner may not be able to claim additional costs that could be recovered through a standard contractual termination.

This can include extra costs for hiring another builder, increased insurance costs, or other expenses that result from the builder’s faults in a standard termination.

Delays and Contributing Factors

In Mardell Constructions Pty Ltd v Singha [2009] VCAT 1532 [8], the Tribunal showed that Section 41 of the Act does not operate independently of the contract. In that case, the contract allowed the builder 10 days to fix a substantial breach before termination. However, the owner had also contributed to the delay by withholding payment, which led the builder to suspend work. The Tribunal found the owner wrongfully terminated the contract, leading to its repudiation.

Section 41(5) entitles the builder to a fair price for the work done up until termination. However, the builder cannot claim more than they would have under the original contract.

Reasonable Costs and Recent Discussions

Recent discussions about the meaning of “reasonable costs” have been highlighted in the 2024 Victorian Department of Government Services Review of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995. The review suggests expanding the definition of “reasonable price” under Section 41 of the Act and recommends a monthly payment model based on completion estimates from an independent contract administrator, such as an architect.

Determining a total settlement under Section 41 of the Act can be complicated due to varying opinions on the value of defects or variations. 

Damages for Defective Work

In Wenli Shao v AG Advanced Construction Pty Ltd [2019] VSCA 93[11], the Court addressed whether termination under Section 41 of the Act cancels out claims for damages due to defective work. The ruling stated that the cost of fixing defects must be considered when calculating the reasonable price owed to the builder under Section 41(5). In this case, the owner terminated the contract and sought damages for defects through VCAT.

The court ruled that the builder was entitled to a reasonable price for the completed work, but this amount was reduced by the cost to fix the defects. On appeal, the Supreme Court agreed that the builder could not be penalized twice for the same defects.

Conclusion

Section 41 terminations may seem attractive in the current environment of fluctuating material costs and availability issues, but they can reduce the amount an owner can claim due to the “no-fault” element. Owners should carefully consider other contract termination options before making a decision and seek professional advice to ensure they can maximize their claim so far as they are by law entitled to. 

Disclaimer:
The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal advice related to building regulations and compliance, please consult a qualified construction lawyer.

Image Acknowledgements:

The digital renders used in this article were developed collaboratively by Lovegrove & Cotton and ChatGPT. The photo images that are not the digital renders are stock images sourced from Shutterstock.

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The World Organization of Building Officials (WOBO) has acknowledged the work of Lovegrove & Cotton for their recent contributions to the International Building Quality Centre (IBQC). WOBO noted the firm’s involvement (in a WOBO update dated 28 March 2024) regarding IBQC guidelines, stating, “WOBO appreciates the work carried out by Lovegrove and Cotton and their recent updates in respect of IBQC.”

Members of the Lovegrove & Cotton team have been instrumental in assisting with the development of the IBQC Risk-Based Building Classification and Mandatory Inspection Guidelines. These guidelines were developed over 18 months, involving collaboration with leading professionals from the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and Germany. The guidelines focus on implementing a risk-based approach to building classification and mandatory inspection processes.

On 28 March 2024, three key articles authored by Lovegrove & Cotton were republished by WOBO:

Image Credit : IBQC

Lovegrove & Cotton acknowledges WOBO’s recognition and is very grateful. The firm also recognizes the important role that this highly regarded global body plays in advancing good practice approaches to building regulation and building control.

Lovegrove & Cotton will continue to support the development of robust building regulatory frameworks, in line with a tradition of helping to establish good practices in building control dating back more than 30 years.

Image Acknowledgements:

The digital renders used in this article were developed collaboratively by Lovegrove & Cotton and ChatGPT. The photo images that are not the digital renders are stock images sourced from Shutterstock.

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Main graphic

A Profile on Tsigereda Lovegrove From Ethiopia to Australia, from Amharic to English and from Admin to running a legal practice – the journey to date and continuing


Tsigereda left Ethiopia in 2009. After an initial period of 4 months in Auckland, New Zealand, with her late mother-in-law, Tsigereda Lovegrove settled in Australia. She learned English as her second language and set her sights on a career in law.

Building a Career at Lovegrove & Cotton

Starting as a receptionist at Lovegrove & Cotton Lawyers in 2011, Tsigereda worked her way up within Lovegrove & Cotton, which was established in 1993 by the writer.

Balancing Education and Professional Responsibilities

While working at the firm, Tsigereda embarked on an LLB at Victoria University. She balanced her studies with her role as Office Manager and Financial Controller, overseeing the firm’s financial and administrative operations. This experience laid a solid foundation for her future roles.

Transitioning to Legal Practice

After completing her law degree, Tsigereda became a Construction Lawyer and Practice Manager at Lovegrove & Cotton. With 11 years of management experience, she now oversees practice management, ensuring the firm’s operations run efficiently while fostering a positive work environment. Since she became Practice Manager, the firm has grown by 300% in terms of full-time legal personnel.

Legal Expertise in Construction Law

Tsigereda’s legal practice covers a broad spectrum of construction law, including tribunal and court cases, building appeals, and building regulatory compliance in Victoria and NSW. She also provides advice on legislative interpretation of the Building Act 1993 and the Domestic Building Contracts Act.

Recognition of her expertise is reflected in the law firm being named in the construction section of Globe Law Experts 2024 for Australia.
Tsigereda- Globe Law ExpetsDownload

International and Local Contributions

In addition to her domestic legal work, Tsigereda serves as Secretary to the International Building Quality Centre (IBQC) Dispute Resolution Coalition. She coordinates efforts among a distinguished group of international legal experts, including senior jurists from Africa and Australia, as well as eminent construction lawyers from both hemispheres. In this capacity, she contributes to the development of dispute resolution protocols and building regulatory guidelines for emerging economies. She is also a member of the Victorian Building Disputes Practitioners Society Committee.

Her commitment to Africa in terms of the work she does on emerging economy guidelines is an intergenerational commitment to capacity development in Africa, as her grandfather-in-law worked for UNESCO in the 1950s and 60s in Addis in educational capacity building. The late Norman Lovegrove was instrumental in helping to establish mobile schooling where UN VW Combis transported teachers to the rural regions to make education more accessible.

The above photo of the Combi was taken by the late Norman in the mid-sixties. Tsigereda’s late father too was an educator and teacher.

Publications and Thought Leadership

Tsigereda has authored and co-authored several publications, focusing on key issues such as building insurance requirements, risk-based building classification, and inspection protocols for emerging economies.

Some Thoughts on Tsigereda Lovegrove’s Contributions


“In the short time I have known Tsigereda ‘Ziggy’ Lovegrove, I have come to respect her diligence, capabilities, and tenacity. Set against the backdrop of a faraway homeland, Ziggy forged a new life for herself in Australia, conquered the English language, and raised a family. In her professional life, Ziggy is rightfully proud to have attained a law degree and become a protégé of the law firm that bears her husband’s name. Professionally, she has assisted the International Building Quality Centre in conducting background research, synthesizing material, and coordinating some of the logistics of international meetings, which has demonstrated her dexterity in familiarizing herself with topics that one can only imagine were quite foreign to her not so long ago.”
– Neil Savery, IBQC Board Member

“ In my interactions with Tsigereda, I have found her to be a remarkable force of intelligence, integrity, and professionalism. At the IBQC, she skillfully facilitated teamwork, ensuring that collaboration was smooth, insightful, and effective. Her exceptional communication and leadership skills were evident in these interactions.

Her extensive knowledge and research contributions on mediation as a dispute resolution mechanism have made a significant positive impact on the industry. Additionally, her strategic thinking and dedication to enhancing dispute resolution mechanisms in developing countries, such as Ethiopia, have left a lasting impression on me”.

– Judge/Justice Maedot Yeshak Tesfaye, Federal Court of Ethiopia . 

The Future

Tsigereda addressing the 30 year anniversary function of Lovegrove & Cotton where amongst other things she talked about the next 30 years.

Tsigereda is intent on growing the practice in Australasia, opening a New Zealand office, and continuing to participate in the development of building regulatory guidelines that are contextualized for Africa. Her commitment to advancing the industry reflects her dedication to making a positive difference both locally and globally.

This piece is penned by the founder of Lovegrove & Cotton Kim Lovegrove

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Share On
Keep well informed with our
Construction & Planning Law eBulletin

Our construction lawyers and senior construction and planning lawyers personally prepare articles and journals on a variety of construction and planning law matters. We invite you to submit your name and email address below to receive our regular eBulletin updates.

Lovegrove & Cotton © 2025. All Rights Reserved.
Terms of Use | Privacy & Security Statement

Website by Catalyst Strategic