Our goal is to help people in the best way possible. this is a basic principle in every case and cause for success. contact us today for a free consultation.
Practice Areas
Newsletter
Sign up to our newsletter
Industry Negligence Hub
When a construction project goes wrong because of a professional’s failure, the consequences rarely stop at the building itself. A structural defect can make a property unsellable. A certification error can trigger demolition orders. A negligent design can unravel a development entirely — leaving you exposed to losses that no building complaint process was designed to address.
Many people who arrive at this point have already spent months working through the builder’s warranty process, lodging complaints with their state building authority, or trying to get answers through a tribunal. Those processes matter, but they were not built to deliver financial compensation for professional failure. That is what a professional negligence claim is for.
Fair Go Australia works exclusively with claimants pursuing professional negligence matters. If a licensed construction professional — an architect, engineer, certifier, project manager, or quantity surveyor — has caused you measurable financial loss through a failure of professional skill or judgment, you may have grounds for a claim. We handle these cases nationally, on a no-win, no-fee basis.
Understanding the claim
Construction professional negligence occurs when a licensed professional operating in a construction context fails to meet the standard of care their role requires — and that failure causes you a real, quantifiable loss.
This is not the same as a building dispute, a defective workmanship complaint, or a contractor who simply did a poor job. The distinction matters: professional negligence involves the exercise of professional skill and judgment — the architect’s design decisions, the engineer’s structural calculations, the certifier’s inspection sign-off. When those professional acts fall below the standard a competent practitioner would have met, and the result is financial harm to you, that is the domain of professional negligence law.
The High Court’s foundational statement on duty of care in Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479 established principles that flow directly into how courts assess whether a professional’s conduct met the required standard. Australian courts have applied this reasoning consistently across professions, including those operating in the construction industry.
Who can be held liable
Construction projects involve layered professional responsibility. Negligence may sit with one professional, or with several simultaneously. Identifying the right parties — and understanding where each professional’s duty begins and ends — is one of the more complex elements of a construction negligence claim.
An architect owes a duty of care in both the design phase and the contract administration phase. Liability can arise from design errors, plans that fail to comply with the National Construction Code or Australian Standards, or a failure to properly administer the building contract — including failures to identify non-compliant work during inspections.
Engineers are responsible for the integrity of what they design. Foundation failures, inadequate load-bearing specifications, and errors in soil or site interaction assessments are among the more common grounds for claims. The engineer's professional duty extends to ensuring their design is buildable, compliant, and fit for the site conditions they were retained to assess.
These professionals carry significant responsibility — they are the checkpoint between construction and legal compliance. Approving non-compliant work at mandatory inspection stages, issuing occupation certificates for buildings with material defects, or failing to identify departures from approved plans can all give rise to a professional negligence claim.
A project manager's duty extends to coordinating, communicating, and supervising the professional inputs across a project. Failures to communicate critical scope changes to the structural engineer, failures to flag compliance risks, or failures to manage the program in a way that leads to costly errors — all fall within the scope of professional accountability.
A materially incorrect cost estimate on which a client relies to make financial decisions — securing finance, committing to a development — can form the basis of a negligence claim where the error was outside the range of competent professional practice.
Site and soil assessment underpins every structural design decision. Where a geotechnical engineer's assessment was deficient — failing to identify reactive clay, inadequate site classification, or errors in bearing capacity analysis — and those errors contributed to structural failure, the professional's liability may be engaged.
More than one professional may have contributed to the same failure. Claims can be structured to pursue multiple defendants, and proportionate liability provisions in state Civil Liability Acts govern how losses are ultimately allocated.
Real-world scenarios
An architect's plans failed to comply with the Building Code of Australia's fire egress requirements. Council refused to issue a compliance certificate for the completed building, requiring costly redesign and reconstruction of a key structural element. The deficiency was present in the original design, not in the builder's execution.
A structural engineer certified a residential apartment development's slab design for the site. Within 18 months of completion, subsidence cracking appeared across multiple units. Independent investigation found the engineer's calculations had applied the wrong soil classification — directly contradicted by the geotechnical report provided to them.
A private building certifier conducted mandatory stage inspections and issued a final occupation certificate. The completed building was later found to have pervasive waterproofing failures to the basement and podium. The defects were visible to a competent inspector at the stages reviewed — yet all approvals were issued without adequate investigation.
A project manager overseeing a large commercial fitout failed to communicate a late structural scope change to the mechanical engineer. The oversight resulted in penetrations that compromised a structural beam — discovered post-completion and requiring significant remediation. Coordinating exactly this kind of professional interface was the project manager's core duty.
A quantity surveyor provided a detailed cost estimate on which a development consortium relied to secure construction financing. The actual project came in 40% over the estimated figure. Expert review found the estimate had omitted a significant portion of required services infrastructure — an error outside the range of acceptable professional practice for a project of that scale.
A geotechnical engineer conducted a site assessment without identifying a reactive clay profile evident from publicly available data and adjacent site reports. The completed residential building developed significant cracking and movement within two years. The structural design had relied entirely on the geotechnical classification and had no mechanism to respond to the actual site conditions.
Claim eligibility
Four legal elements need to be established. Each one matters, and none of them can be assumed. Here is how they apply in a construction context.
Architects, engineers, certifiers, and project managers all owe a duty of care to those who retain them, and in some circumstances to those who rely on their work without a direct contractual relationship. The High Court's decision in Brookfield Multiplex Ltd v Owners Corporation Strata Plan 61288 [2014] HCA 36 addressed the boundaries of duty in construction — confirming that professional duty does not simply disappear at practical completion.
The test is not whether a different outcome was possible — it is whether the professional's conduct fell below the standard a competent practitioner in that field would have met. Reference points include the National Construction Code, relevant Australian Standards, and professional practice guidelines published by Engineers Australia and the Australian Institute of Architects.
The breach must have caused your loss. Courts assess causation in terms of what was probable, not merely possible — the principles in Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638 remain central to how causation and loss of a chance are assessed in negligence claims. This is not always straightforward where multiple parties and site conditions interact.
You must be able to demonstrate real financial harm — remediation costs, diminution in value, financing losses, delay costs. Courts do not award compensation for distress in isolation. The loss must be measurable and causally connected to the professional's breach.
If you are uncertain whether your situation meets these elements, our team can work through the specifics with you in a free, confidential evaluation. You do not need to have the legal analysis figured out before you make contact.
Step-by-step process
1. Preserve all documentation Gather contracts, engagement letters, design drawings, engineering reports, specifications, correspondence, council approvals, inspection certificates, invoices, and any independent assessments you already have. The evidentiary foundation of any claim starts here.
2. Obtain an independent expert report You will need a qualified professional in the relevant discipline to assess and document the failure. The High Court’s guidance in Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21 on the admissibility and weight of expert evidence is directly relevant — expert reports must be properly structured and clearly connect the opinion to the evidence.
3. Identify all potentially liable parties Construction negligence often involves more than one professional. Your legal team will advise on how to structure the claim, who to name, and how proportionate liability applies to your situation under the applicable state Civil Liability Act.
4. Be clear on the limitation period This is time-critical — see the urgency block below. In construction matters, the limitation clock generally starts when you became aware, or reasonably should have become aware, of both the defect and its professional cause.
5. Lodge a formal claim Depending on the quantum, claims are typically commenced in the Supreme Court or District Court of the relevant state. Some matters may also involve concurrent proceedings in a state tribunal or before a building authority, but these run separately from the negligence claim and do not deliver equivalent financial remedies.
6. Negotiate or litigate The majority of professional negligence claims settle before reaching trial. Your legal team will advise on the merits, the likely range of recovery, and the strategic approach — including when to push and when a negotiated outcome serves your interests better.
Professional negligence claims must generally be commenced within three years of the date you became aware — or should reasonably have become aware — of the negligence. In construction matters, time may begin running when a defect becomes apparent and a professional cause is identifiable — which can be years after construction. Missing this deadline can permanently extinguish your right to claim.
If you are unsure whether your limitation period is still open, contact our team for a free assessment as soon as possible.
What you can recover
The categories of recoverable loss in a construction professional negligence matter can be significant. The starting point is always the actual loss caused by the professional’s failure. Claims involving pure financial loss — where there is no physical damage to property the claimant owned — engage the principles discussed by the High Court in Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 180. These claims require careful structuring, but they are not uncommon in construction professional negligence matters.
The reasonable cost to remedy the defect or failure that the professional's negligence caused — typically the most significant component of the claim.
Where a defect has permanently reduced the market value of the property, even after rectification works are completed.
Financing costs incurred because of project delays, rental income lost during remediation, and project escalation costs attributable to the professional's error.
In developer claims, the lost profit on a project where a professional's negligence made the development financially unviable or significantly less profitable.
The costs of identifying, documenting, and assessing the failure are recoverable in appropriate circumstances as part of the claim.
Where structural failure has caused physical damage to other property or personal injury, additional heads of loss may arise in limited circumstances.
Important distinction
State building authorities — including the Building Commission NSW, the Victorian Building Authority, the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC), Consumer and Building Services SA, and their equivalents — exist to handle complaints, enforce compliance, and in some cases administer statutory insurance schemes.
A complaint to a building authority is not a substitute for a professional negligence claim. Regulatory processes can result in disciplinary action against a professional, orders to rectify work, or referral for deregistration — but they do not deliver financial compensation to you.
Both pathways can run simultaneously. A complaint to the relevant authority may produce useful findings or admissions. But if financial recovery is your goal, that requires a civil claim — and that is where professional negligence law applies.
Why Fair Go Australia
Construction professional negligence is a technically demanding area of law. It requires lawyers who understand both the legal framework and the construction industry well enough to properly assess a claim, brief the right experts, and build a case that survives scrutiny.
Fair Go Australia works exclusively in professional negligence. We do not handle conveyancing, family law, or wills. Our focus is entirely on one side of one type of claim — and that depth of focus means we have seen the patterns, we know the arguments, and we understand what courts in this area actually require.
We work on a no-win, no-fee basis, and our initial evaluation is completely free. We operate nationally — whether you are in regional Queensland, suburban Perth, or central Sydney, we can assist you.
✔ No Win No Fee ✔ Free Evaluation ✔ Confidential ✔ Australia-Wide
Common questions
Yes — where the defects trace back to the architect’s design decisions rather than the builder’s execution, a professional negligence claim against the architect may be appropriate. The question is whether the architect’s work fell below the standard a competent architect would have met, and whether that failure caused your loss. Defects that result from the builder departing from a sound design are a separate matter.
A defect claim typically runs through home building legislation, statutory warranties, and state tribunals — it is aimed at the builder and the quality of their work. A professional negligence claim is directed at a licensed professional for a failure of skill or judgment in their professional role. The two can arise from the same project, but they follow entirely different legal paths and deliver different outcomes.
Yes. Council approval confirms that the documentation submitted was formally assessed — it does not certify that the engineering design was competent or correct. An engineer’s professional liability for a deficient design is not discharged by council approval. If the design was inherently flawed and caused loss, the engineer’s professional indemnity remains engaged.
Claims can be brought against multiple defendants within the same proceedings. Proportionate liability provisions in the Civil Liability Acts of most states mean that each defendant is ultimately liable for the share of loss attributed to their own negligence. Your legal team will advise on how to structure the claim to capture all available recovery.
Nothing upfront. We operate on a no-win, no-fee basis — there are no legal costs unless your claim succeeds. The initial case evaluation is completely free. If your claim proceeds and succeeds, our fees are deducted from the compensation recovered.
Your own home or building insurance generally does not respond to professional negligence by a third party. It is the professional’s own professional indemnity insurance that covers their liability to you. Most licensed construction professionals are required to maintain professional indemnity cover, and claims are typically made against that policy.
Our goal is to help people in the best way possible. this is a basic principle in every case and cause for success. contact us today for a free consultation.
Sign up to our newsletter