Most practitioners miss several critical interactions and timing traps.
First, the six-year major defect period (s 18E(1)(b)) runs from completion, not from when the defect becomes apparent. However, if the defect becomes apparent in the last six months of the period, proceedings may be commenced within a further six months (s 18E(1)(e)). The definition of "major defect" (s 18E(4)) is narrower than many assume; it requires either a threat of collapse, inability to inhabit, or use of a prohibited building product. Minor water leaks or cosmetic defects will not qualify, even if expensive to rectify.
Second, the "nominated supervisor" rules (s 33C(6)–(9)) create hidden traps. An individual cannot be nominated supervisor for more than one contractor licence without the Secretary's written permission, which is granted only in "special circumstances". The Secretary's view of what constitutes special circumstances is not published, creating compliance risk. The holder of an endorsed contractor licence is exempt from the permission requirement for one additional licence only.
Third, the interaction between s 18D(1B) and the regulation-making power means that once a non-contracting owner has enforced a warranty for a particular deficiency, other parties may be barred from doing so unless the regulations provide otherwise. At present the regulations do not create any carve-out, creating a "first past the post" risk in multi-owner buildings.
Fourth, the insurance "date of completion" rules (ss 3B, 3C) differ from the date used for the statutory warranty limitation period. A building may be practically complete for insurance purposes (occupation certificate issued) but not complete for warranty purposes if minor defects prevent reasonable use. This can create gaps in coverage.
Fifth, developer liability under s 3A(1A) is deemed to arise even where work is actually performed on behalf of a joint venture partner. The note to s 3A(1A) makes clear that both the owner of the land and the joint venture partner can be developers simultaneously. Many joint venture agreements fail to allocate this contingent liability.
Sixth, the prohibition on creating interests in land (ss 7D, 16DD) is wider than many realise. Any provision purporting to create a legal or equitable estate or interest is void, and caveats cannot be lodged. The only exception requires a court judgment and registration on Torrens title land. This catches many "security of payment" style charges.
Seventh, the "unqualified" electrical, refrigeration, and medical gas provisions (ss 14, 15, 15A–15C) create strict liability for individuals. The "present at all times" and "personally ensure" requirements for supervisors are more onerous than many practitioners appreciate. A supervisor who is available by telephone but not physically present when critical work is performed will breach the section.
Eighth, the register maintained under s 120 is not merely informational. Public recording of insurance claims, cautions, and disciplinary outcomes can have serious reputational and commercial consequences long after the underlying events. There is no automatic removal mechanism once an entry is made, although the Secretary has discretion under s 120(4).
Ninth, the interaction between the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 and this Act is still developing. Section 18F(4) now references registered design practitioners, but the precise overlap between duty of care under the DBP Act and statutory warranties remains untested in higher courts.
Tenth, the "reasonable price" entitlement on rescission (ss 7BA(7), 7BB(7), 16DBA(7)) is not the contract price but a quantum meruit amount. Many practitioners assume they can recover the full contract rate; the Act expressly limits recovery to reasonable value, and s 7BB(8) further caps it at the amount that would have been recoverable under the contract.
These gotchas reflect the Act's evolution from a relatively simple licensing statute in 1989 to a complex, multi-layered consumer protection and industry regulation regime. Practitioners who treat the Act as "just about licensing" regularly fall into these traps.