Last Updated on 06/11/2026 by Damin Murdock and Nohra Chalouhi
Building defects are not always immediately apparent. In some cases, serious defects may only emerge years after construction has been completed. However, the passage of time can significantly affect a homeowner’s ability to seek redress. In New South Wales, different limitation periods apply depending on the legal basis of the claim, and understanding how those periods interact can be critical to commencing proceedings before it is too late.
When does a claim for breach of statutory warranty under the HBA lapse?
The Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) (HBA) provides an avenue of redress for homeowners where one or more of the statutory warranties set out in section 18B have been breached.
Section 18E sets out the time requirements for commencing proceedings for breach of those warranties. Under section 18E(1)(b), the warranty period is six years for a breach resulting in a “major defect”, as defined in section 18E(4), and two years for any other defect. In either case, section 18E(1)(c) provides that the warranty period generally begins upon completion of the work to which the warranty relates.
There is, however, a limited extension. If the breach of warranty becomes apparent within the final six months of the applicable warranty period, section 18E(1)(e) permits proceedings to be commenced within a further six months after the warranty period expires.
When does a claim for breach of the statutory duty of care under the DBPA lapse?
Section 37 of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) (DBPA) imposes a duty on a person carrying out construction work to exercise reasonable care to avoid economic loss caused by defects in or related to a building arising from that work. A breach of this duty may therefore provide another avenue of redress for owners affected by defective construction work.
Unlike the HBA, the DBPA does not itself prescribe a specific limitation period for proceedings under section 37. Instead, section 14 of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) (LA) generally provides a six-year limitation period commencing when the cause of action first accrues.
This raises the important question of when a cause of action under section 37 accrues. Although the duty is imposed by statute, section 37 operates as a duty of care and the ordinary principle is that damage is the gist of the action: the cause of action accrues when actionable loss is sustained. In Cyril Smith & Associates Pty Ltd v The Owners-Strata Plan No 64970 [2011] NSWCA 181, the Court observed in the context of negligent construction that the relevant loss has been held to accrue when the defects become manifest or are otherwise discovered.
This distinction can be important because, unlike the HBA warranty period, the limitation period may not necessarily begin simply because construction work has been completed.
The EP&A Act: the 10-year long-stop period
A further limitation is imposed by section 6.20 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EP&A Act).
Section 6.20 provides that a civil action for loss or damage arising out of or in connection with defective building or subdivision work cannot be brought more than 10 years after completion of the work.
Although this may initially appear to provide a 10-year period within which a claim can always be brought, that is not its effect. Decisions including Bandelle Pty Ltd v Sydney Capitol Hotels Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 303 and Fortius Broadway No 1 Pty Ltd v ACN 103 211 141 Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 710 demonstrate that section 6.20 operates as a long-stop limitation period. It does not extend a shorter limitation period that would otherwise apply. Instead, it imposes an ultimate deadline beyond which a relevant civil action cannot be brought.
How these limitation periods operate in practice?
Suppose residential building work is completed in January 2026 and the homeowner discovers defects that may amount to major defects in February 2032.
For a claim under the HBA, the six-year warranty period would ordinarily have commenced upon completion of the work in January 2026. By February 2032, that period would have expired, potentially barring proceedings for breach of the statutory warranties.
A claim for breach of the statutory duty of care under section 37 of the DBPA may stand differently. If the relevant cause of action accrued when the defects and resulting loss became manifest or were discovered in February 2032, the six-year limitation period under the Limitation Act could ordinarily extend beyond 2036.
However, section 6.20 of the EP&A Act would prevent a relevant civil action from being brought more than 10 years after completion of the work. Accordingly, despite the otherwise applicable limitation period, the homeowner would need to commence the DBPA claim before the 10-year long-stop period expired in January 2036.
The result illustrates an important point: there is no single limitation period that applies to every building defect claim. The applicable deadline depends upon the cause of action, when that cause of action accrued and whether another statutory provision imposes an earlier long-stop date.
Need Advice?
At Leo Lawyers, we understand that building defects may only become apparent years after construction has been completed, making it difficult for homeowners to determine whether they still have a viable claim. Different causes of action can carry different limitation periods, and waiting too long may permanently prevent a claim from being pursued. We assist homeowners to identify the claims potentially available to them, determine the applicable limitation periods and take appropriate steps to protect their rights before time expires.
Feel free to contact Damin Murdock at Leo Lawyers via our Website, on (02) 8201 0051 or at office@leolawyers.com.au. Further, if you liked this article, please subscribe to our newsletter via our Website, to our YouTube, LinkedIn, Facebook and Instagram, and kindly give us a favourable Google Review.
DISCLAIMER: This is not legal advice and is general information only. You should not rely upon the information contained in this article and if you require specific legal advice, please contact us.
Damin Murdock (J.D | LL.M | BACS - Finance) has over 17 years of experience as a commercial lawyer. He helps businesses navigate construction and technology law. Damin has held several big leadership roles, including serving as a director of a national law firm and the Chief Legal Officer for Lawpath.
He has personally helped more than 2,000 startups and small businesses. With over 300 five-star reviews, his clients clearly value his practical advice and simple way of explaining things. Damin has also hosted over 100 webinars that thousands of people have watched to get reliable legal help.

