A further case in which a Supervisor was held responsible for losses by the Owner due to his failure to comply with the obligations of Section 37 of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020

24/02/2026

A recent Decision in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, considers the Builders’ and Supervisors’ obligations and responsibility and liability for losses by the Owner due to their failure to comply with obligations under Section 37 of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (DBP Act) to exercise reasonable care to avoid economic loss caused by building defects.

Kapila v Monument Building Group Pty Limited [2025] NSWSC 1306.

Mr Brujic, Nominated Supervisor of the Builder and Director was held responsible for Owner’s losses.

This case recently decided by Justice Richmond of the Supreme Court of New South Wales considers many issues that have arisen in relation to the DBP Act and other issues in construction projects.

Brief Facts

The Plaintiff was the Owner of a property in Paddington, Sydney (the Property) who in 2015 entered into a Building Contract with the First Defendant, Monument Building Group Pty Limited (MBG) as the Builder.

MBG held a Contractors Licence issued under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) (HBA).

The Second Defendant Mr Miles Brujic (Mr Brujic) was the Sole Director of the Builder and was the Nominated Supervisor under MBG’s Contractors Licence as required by the Home Building Act.

The Plaintiff Owner claimed against the Builder:

(a)      Including losses relating to defects due to breaches by the Builder in breach of the Building Contract; and

(b)      For losses as a result of the Builder breaching its obligations under Section 37 of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020. However at the hearing, the Owner did not seek to proceed with this claim against MBG under Section 37 of the DBP Act.

The Court found against the Builder based on breaches of the Contract including the implied Statutory Warranties which are included in the Building Contract by statute,

(which were also expressly stated in the Building Contract).

The Plaintiff claimed against Mr Brujic and relied solely on the alleged breach of Section 37 of the DBP Act.  The Court held that Mr Brujic was in breach of Section 37 of the DBP Act.

The Court made Orders including that the Defendants, MBG and Mr Brujic pay to the Plaintiff Owner:

(a)      Damages of $1,026,933.

(b)      Pre-judgment interest in the sum of $101,622.79.

The questions to be determined by the Supreme Court were:

1.       Whether the alleged defects in the construction works constituted a breach by MBG of the Contract.

2.       Whether Mr Brujic breached Section 37(1) of the DBP Act by reason of the water issues and/or the install issues. 

3.       If the relevant breach occurred, whether the Defendants namely, the Builder and Mr Brujic can rely on Part 4 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 to claim against numerous persons namely, that the Defendants claimed where concurrent wrongdoers and should be held to account.

4.       Whether in the case of the claim against Mr Brujic for breach of Section 37(1) of the DBP Act, the defence of contributory negligence was made out.

5.       What damages, if any are payable.

Duty of Care – Section 37(1) of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020

This article relates to whether Mr Brujic was in breach of duties under Section 37 (1) of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020.

Part 4 of DBP Act headed “Duty of Care” includes Section 37 which imposes duty of care on the persons who carry out construction work.

The expression construction work is defined in Section 36(1) includes:

(d)      supervising, coordinating, project management or otherwise having substantive control over the carrying out of any work as referred to which includes “building work” as defined.

Building Work includes residential building work within the Home Building Act 1989.

The duties owing under Section 37 is owed to each owner of the land. The context of the duties under Section 37 is to exercise reasonable care to avoid economic loss caused by defects related to a building for which the work is done and arising from the construction.

The Supreme Court held that Mr Brujic was the Nominated Supervisor under MBG’s Contractors Licence and in that role, he supervised and made decisions as to the manner of carrying out and was able to control the building work by MBG under the Building Contract which resulted in losses to the Owner.  The Court held that there was a failure by MBG to do the work with due care and skill and further, Mr Brujic supervised the work and was responsible for the manner in which for example, the roof and skylights and the box gutter were installed. 

The Court found that the manner in which the work was done, was a breach by him of his duty under Section 37 of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 to take reasonable care to avoid economic loss caused by defective installation. 

The Court held accordingly the claim against Mr Brujic under Section 37 was made out and made Orders against Mr Brujic as referred to above.

The Court stated that Mr Brujic carried out construction work in relation to building work and relied upon a Decision of Justice Stevenson of the Supreme Court in Kazzi v KR Properties Global Pty Limited.  We refer to our Article dated 9 January 2026 in relation to a Decision in the Kazzi case.

Watson & Watson Lawyers have years of extensive experience in all areas of building and construction law.  Whether you are a Builder, an Owner, Subcontractor or in any way associated with the Building and Construction work, seek our advice at the time of contracting to do this work or subsequently for example, when you are facing a possible or actual building and construction dispute, whether it pertains to defective works, delays, potential breach of Contract or any building issue/dispute. We recommend the best way forward is to consider from the outset, alternatives, costs and benefits.  This is how we have considered potential claims and actual claims for many years. Some disputes and potential claims can sometimes become difficult and expensive.

Please contact Richard Watson, Accredited Specialist by the Law Society of New South Wales, Commercial Litigation in the stream of Building and Construction by contacting his Personal Assistant Shereen Da Gloria to discuss your circumstances and seek appropriate timely advice.

The above in our view, is not based on your particular factual matters, and it is critical that one considers the factual matters and the law that applies to your circumstances. The above is not to be taken as legal advice to be relied upon, without first contacting Richard Watson as referred to above.

This is only a preliminary view and is not to be taken as legal advice without first contacting Watson & Watson Lawyers on 9221 6011.