Your preferred office location:
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. HHG Articles
  4. /
8 Dec 2014

Since 7 June 2012, a new statutory regime has governed the process of certifying building designs and structures by building surveyors.  That regime appears in the Building Act 2011 and Building Regulations 2012.  The following themes emerge out of the new regime:


(a)  the need for building surveyors to compete for work in the marketplace;

(b)  reapportioning the risk of civil liability; and

(c)  balancing the private interests of building services contractors and owners of developed property and their neighbors with the public interest in sustainable and safe urban development.


A competitive market for building certification work

Under the new regime:

(a)  building surveyors employed by local governments have to compete for work; and

(b)  where the job has been given to a surveyor employed by local government (for example, on referral by a local council of an uncertified application under subsection 17(1) of the Building Act), it does not have to go to an employee of the referring council or of the council that governs the district where the applicant’s land is located.


Statutory apportionment of risk of civil liability

Some of the preconditions to issuing a certificate or permit by a permit authority are based on the proper performance by building surveyors of their functions under the Act.  This might have been supposed to expose building surveyors to the risk of becoming liable whenever their error or omission occasions loss or damage, were it not for sections 143 and 144 of the Building Act.

Sections 143 and 144 of the Building Act: What has changed

Sections 143 and 144 have brought about these changes:

(a)  section 143 imposes an obligation of “good faith” on those engaged in activities under the Act;

(b)  the obligation applies to anyone who is acting in performance of a function, or purporting so to act, that is, acting in the belief (whether true or not) that he or she is performing a function under the Act (which would include building certification);

(c)  if a private building surveyor breaches the duty of good faith, they will no longer be protected from liability in tort (that is, for breaching any legal duty of care that arises independently of any contract);

(d)  under section 144:

(i)            a permit authority, in issuing a permit or certificate under the Act, is entitled to rely on the facts and opinions asserted in a building surveyor’s certificate; and

(ii)           a building surveyor, in issuing his or her certificate, is entitled to rely on a fact or opinion asserted in a technical specialist’s certificate.


Commentary on the new provisions

Duty of good faith

There is no one legal definition of “good faith” that applies uniformly in every case.  At a minimum, a duty of good faith requires a decision-maker to exercise independent judgment, taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances, and the interests of all parties concerned, rather than exclusively the interests of the applicant: Esso Australia Resources Pty Ltd v Southern Pacific Petroleum NC & Ors [2005] VSCA 228, [28] per Buchanan JA.


Those who do not act in good faith when acting as private building surveyors lose the protections afforded under s143(1) from liability for any loss or damage thereby caused.  Together with the extended protection from liability of those who purport to perform a function under the Act, this means that private building surveyors are protected from liability in tort as long as they honestly believe that they are discharging their obligations under the Act, that is, if they perform their statutory functions faithfully and without fear or favour.  This proviso may have been inserted in response to the experience in the east of some building surveyors giving, or at least appearing to give, primacy to the financial interests of contractors or landowners in getting defective applications for building or occupancy permits “over the line” quickly.


Immunity from liability in tort

I have emphasised the words in tort because they are significant.  These words mean that the statute will only protect surveyors from liability for breach of a duty of care arising otherwise than under a contract.  Where a negligent act or omission breaches a duty that a surveyor owes under a contract with a builder or landowner, the Act will not protect the surveyor from liability for any loss or damage the surveyor causes by breaching that contract.  To avoid contractual liability, the surveyor will need to negotiate for an appropriate indemnity clause to be included in their service contract.


Shifting liability to technical specialists

Technical specialists are experts in a relevant field of learning or expertise.  In the building context, examples include structural engineers, geotechnical engineers and architects.


Where assessment of design or building compliance requires technical expertise, surveyors are relieved of any personal obligation to ensure the accuracy or soundness of underlying facts and opinions.  Such cases would be almost universal, as the erection even of simple structures (single dwellings, for example) at least requires soil classification and structural integrity checks.  In such cases, a building surveyor is entitled to rely on facts observed and opinions expressed by technical specialists (i.e. engineers and architects).

Significantly, engineers and architects, who already carry a higher standard of care as professionals, are afforded no protection from liability under the Act.  Nor are construction contractors (or “building services contractors” as they are now called), who may also be liable under the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 if their conduct (which may or may not amount to negligence) causes loss or damage.  Thus, the new regime effectively shifts the risk of civil liability for building defects away from building surveyors and Government (Local and State) and towards engineers and architects (who will be insured) and building contractors (who may or may not be insured).


This risk allocation matrix seems consistent with broader moves towards professionalisation of the construction industry in such a way as ultimately will allow it to become self-regulating.  This objective of professional self-regulation may be inferred, for example, from provisions in the Act which give each of the Building Commissioner, the Minister (and upon advice from the Minister, the Governor) and the State Administrative Tribunal, limited powers to legislate (i.e. to make new laws) in the interests of safety, health, amenity and sustainability (see, for example, sections 45 and 93).  These provisions seem purpose-built to allow a maturing “building profession” to decide for itself how its practices will adapt to scientific and technological advancements, with appropriate assistance from the public sector, and consistently with overarching principles of safe and sustainable urban development.


The statutory protection from liability in tort does not extend to permit authorities (although, where the permit authority is a Local Council, as it will be except in the case of public works, its employees and contractors are similarly protected under section 9.56 of the Local Government Act 1995).


However, bear in mind that:

(a)  permit authorities are otherwise relieved of any obligations with respect to the accuracy of any fact stated or the soundness of any opinion expressed in any certificate issued by a surveyor (see section 144 of the Building Act 2011); and

(b)  the Act requires permit authorities to do no more than:

(i)             check that each of the criteria for issuing a building permit under section 20 or a permit or certificate allowing occupancy or use of the structure under section 58 have been met;

(ii)           grant the application if they have; and

(iii)          refuse it otherwise.


Together, these provisions confer nothing more than a “rubber stamping” function on the permit authority.  There is no exercise of discretion or decision-making involved in this role.  On the contrary, the Act says that if all the prescribed criteria have been met ,the relevant permit or certificate must (not may) be issued. The Act does not otherwise empower the permit authority to issue any such permit or certificate.


It follows that:

(a)  if a permit authority simply does as the Act requires and “rubber stamps” a permit or certificate application in reliance on the surveyor’s certificate, it will escape liability under the Act for loss or damage caused by any error or omission in the certificate; but

(b)  if the permit authority decides to exceed the statutory requirement and check the surveyor’s certificate for errors or omissions, and it does so negligently, then it may have to pay compensation for its “misfeasance”.


So understood, the new regime, to the extent that it applies to government authorities, does not change the pre-existing law that if a public authority was empowered, but not required, to do an act or make a decision, then:

(a)  It could not be held liable to compensate anyone for loss or damage suffered because it did or decided nothing; but

(b)  It could be held liable for any loss or damage occasioned by its negligent act or decision.


Remember, though, that permit authorities are now, and are always likely to be, government agencies. This means they have a duty to serve the public.  It is easy to imagine instances where the public interest in safe and sustainable urban development will require Local Governments to work with building contractors and landowners to get a marginally defective permit application “over the line” rather than simply refusing it based on a strict demarcation of statutory roles and responsibilities.  To do this, without otherwise interfering with the performance of statutory functions by surveyors, contractors and technical specialists, is unlikely to expose a Local Government to any risk of liability in tort.


Under the Building Act 2011, private enterprise has been given the opportunity to compete for contracts to certify design and structural compliance, a job formerly reserved exclusively to building surveyors employed by local councils.  However, in doing so, the Act:

(a)  allows private building surveyors to keep enjoying the same immunities that public building surveyors have always enjoyed under section 9.56 of the Local Government Act 1995;

(b)  preserves the role of public building surveyors;

(c)  thereby places public and private surveyors on the same competitive footing; and

(d)  for the first time, exposes private and public surveyors to a risk that is common to all private service providers: that is, the risk of liability for breach of contract.


This, and the extension of existing protections from civil liability to Local Governments in their role as permit authorities, means that the risk of civil liability outside of contract lies where it has always lain: with building contractors and technical specialists.


However, a more fundamental shift may be observed in the social role of construction contractors and technical specialists under the new regime which I refer to as “professionalisation”.  The Act may be seen to accommodate this shift by providing a framework for incremental self-regulation by the industry/profession in a way that serves overarching objective of safe and sustainable urban development without the need for continuing legislative interference.

This is general information only, and does not constitute specific legal advice. If you would like further information in relation to this matter or other legal matters please contact our office on Freecall 1800 609 945 or email us now.

*This is general information only, and does not constitute specific legal advice. Please consult one of our experienced Legal Team for specific advice relevant to your situation.

Supporting Western Australians for more than 100 years

"Always fast and thorough service. Thank you"

Sitka Pil

"My circumstances at the time I made contact with HHG were dire following my argument being rejected by two no win no fee firms. Following my initial meeting with HHG's employment law team I was left feeling extremely positive by the response and concern shown by HHG in regards to their support of my argument along with their preparedness to pursue an outcome on my behalf.

I accept the fact that nobody really wins in these cases (mental health/ workplace) however the end result was what would be considered most favourable and far in excess of what would have been achieved had I not sought the advice from HHG.

I have no hesitation in recommending HHG to anyone caught up in the messy circumstances I found myself in at the time.

Great advice and five-star commitment to their client!!"

Nathan Lynch

"Thank you for such great assistance with the transaction of Flying Domestics on behalf of Lorna Good. It has been such a pleasure to work with the HHG Legal Group and I look forward to working with you in the future."

Jim Goodwin

"Simon Creek and his team were at all times empathic, professional and confident.  My matter needed to be addressed within a pressing time frame, and their availability at short notice and contact after hours was much appreciated.  It caused me considerable stress, but having such a thoroughly reliable and competent team to call on helped me to feel in control. Although I hope not to need their services again in future, I would be confident in doing so!"

Dr Lana Bell

"A good outcome is what we can expect.  A great outcome is a sign of a company which does the very best for their clients. A very big thank you to Daniel Morris for showing empathy towards my small and much needed legal action.

To HHG Legal Group, thank you for a great outcome.  I would recommend your company to anyone seeking legal services."

Jan Atkinson

"Your support this morning was amazingly kind, not to mention your totally reassuring competence, knowledge and wisdom that you used on my behalf.  It was extremely reassuring to have your knowledgeable support, and I particularly appreciated your real and obvious kindness to me. It means so much at a very difficult time. I'm so grateful to you."

Family Law Client

"Janene was very professional and we established a good rapport quickly. The subject of death and wills can be quite confronting to deal with, however, Janene's approach was soft and accommodating."

Lynette Livesey

"A big thank you to HHG for their professional service, continued support, and wide range of legal knowledge. Our clients have given us nothing but kind words regarding HHG Legal Group and so we have no hesitation in referring and recommending Simon Creek and HHG Legal Group for their outstanding services and legal expertise."

Nigel Plowman, Director at Mckinley Plowman & Associates

"Simon is a friendly and practical legal advisor. I have received great feedback from the clients I have referred to him and his team at HHG Legal Group."

Richard Beal, Director at BDO

"Over the last few years, I have been impressed by Simon’s legal ability, management skills, entrepreneurial spirit, personal integrity and people skills. He appears to be that rare breed of lawyer – both knowledgeable and commercial."

Michael Malone, Founder of iiNet

"Our family has been a client of HHG Legal Group over many years.  Business has included drawing up of wills for three generations and preparing of probate for my father in law. I would have no hesitation in recommending HHG Legal Group to anyone requiring such services."

Bernice Climie

"You should be congratulated for the manner in which your staff address clients and we found our dealings with your company, once again a very pleasant experience and we would like to truly thank you for your efforts."

Steve Harvey and Jane Powell

"HHG Legal were absolutely fantastic. Extremely responsive and brought calm to our chaotic family situation through their knowledge and caring attitude. Extremely professional from our very first contact with them and they expertly guided our family though the required legal process over almost a 12 month period."

Amanda Williamson

"Fantastic team! They really care about their client. Tim Colcutt is a 'go that extra mile' guy who gives his client his all. I can't recommend HHG and Tim enough."

Kerry Samson

"I had a fantastic lawyer in Matthew Lilly. He helped me out a great deal with good, sound advice in a friendly, professional manner. First class, thanks Matthew"

Graeme Hammond

"Marine Plant Systems has been working with HHG Legal Group for a few years now and they continually provide first-class service. Their professional advice has been invaluable to our company."

Carolin Grimm - Marine Plant Systems

"We were kept up to date at all times. Pricing was always updated over the time period so we remained "in budget". Personal access to someone whenever I had questions. All in all a great experience without too much fuss."

Rosslyn Tasker - COO Altusq Pty Ltd

"Good service you can count on."

Miles Lee

"HHG Legal Group has provided outstanding support as I have taken the journey of buying a business, their professionalism is beyond reproach. Their assistance throughout the Due Diligence process has been invaluable, I would fully recommend them."

Mark Armitage

"Very friendly and efficient service - what a pleasure working with Matthew."

Jacques Taylor

"I highly recommend Daniel from HHG Lawyer in Mandurah. When dealing with a complicated legal property matter recently I was extremely impressed by Daniel's honesty and integrity and the legal advice I received. I am very happy with the service from HHG Legal."

Tony Walker

"Lisa, thank you so much for representing me in court, honestly, I would not have had the outcome I got without you. Once again, Thank you so much."


"Matthew Lilly was excellent in processing our project. He achieved the excellent result that we required on our project.

We would give Matthew a 5 star rating.

We will definitely commission Matthew for any further projects if we have the need."


"I have had the pleasure of being represented by Ms Lisa Riley. Lisa helped me in December 2020 when I was charged. Lisa was extremely supportive, reassuring, and preserved with her investigation of the laws and was able to save me from a terrible outcome. Another incident occurred in August 2021 in which I sought Lisa’s help. Lisa preserved and was very patient with me. This only got resolved this year. When she advised me that she was leaving her old firm, I insisted that she remain my lawyer, as I had the utmost faith in her. Hence I moved over to HHG. Lisa took no shortcuts in my defence and continued to preserve for the toxicology report that ultimately saved me. She kept me up-to-date with the progress and provided support. Having someone as understanding as Lisa was a huge gift, to me and my family. You have gained a huge asset in Lisa joining your firm.

Thank you, Lisa, forever grateful for your work, and if ever needed, I will be sure to refer to you"


"We can highly recommend HHG Legal Group and particularly Mr Blair Campbell (Special Counsel / Dispute Resolution)

Blair worked with us as we navigated a very difficult third party dispute.

Blair’s expertise, wisdom, and the way he guided us in a very measured and calm manner gave us great encouragement and comfort. Blair helped us to focus on what we needed to and to trust the process.

Blair was always responsive to us, he always got back to us very promptly to answer our questions and to help us to step through some really hard days.

We are very grateful for Blair’s expertise and wisdom along with his empathy and care, this truly made the difference for us."

Wayne and Janice Belcher

Preferred office location:

Please select your nearest office location so we can show you the most relevant information.