The Star Entertainment Sydney Properties Pty Ltd v Buildcorp Group Pty Ltd (t/as Buildcorp Interiors) [2026] NSWSC 27
- $4 million claimed.
- $285k awarded.
The difference? Risk allocation under the contract.
The Issue
Following post-Grenfell scrutiny, the Star undertook combustible ACP remediation works at its Pyrmont casino and sued Buildcorp under three separate contracts. Buildcorp denied liability and cross-claimed against its subcontractor and insurers.
The Supreme Court of NSW analysed each contract individually — and that changed everything.
Contract 1 – Construct Only
Buildcorp was engaged to build in accordance with design and specifications provided by others.
- No design responsibility.
- No obligation to redesign.
- No independent duty to verify BCA compliance beyond proper execution of the works.
- If the non-compliance arose from the design, that risk stayed with the designer.
- No breach.
Contract 2 – Broader D&C
- Although this contract expanded Buildcorp’s responsibilities, the ACP installation fell within a BCA exception.
- No regulatory breach established.
- No liability.
Contract 3 – Express Compliance Obligations
- This is where it shifted.
- Buildcorp had express obligations to ensure BCA compliance and fitness for purpose.
- The ACP did not meet those requirements.
- Breach established.
- But the Court confined damages to the proven, causally connected rectification costs, rejecting a broader $4 million remediation claim.
Award: $285,662.
The Insurance Angle
The subcontractor installed non-compliant ACP in breach of warranties.
Importantly, the Court held the defective panels physically altered and impaired the building amounting to “property damage” under the policy.
Result: partial indemnity of $214,247 from the subcontractor’s insurers.
Net exposure significantly reduced.
The Takeaway
This case isn’t about cladding. It’s about contracts.
If you are construct-only and you properly execute the specified works, courts will not automatically shift design risk onto you. But once you accept express compliance or fitness-for-purpose obligations, your exposure changes dramatically. Liability follows the contract not the politics, not the headlines, and not the mere presence of combustible cladding.
In D&C projects, you are either pricing risk properly…or you are gambling with it.