Star Entertainment Sydney v Buildcorp
The Star Entertainment Sydney Properties Pty Ltd v Buildcorp Group Pty Ltd trading as Buildcorp Interiors [2026] NSWSC 27 was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales and concerned the use of aluminium composite panels (ACPs) on the external façade of refurbishment works at Sydney’s Star Casino.
The case highlights the different types of ACPs, the interpretation of Building Code of Australia (BCA) provisions applying at the time of approval, and the contractual allocation of design responsibility between builders, architects, subcontractors and consultants.
For both, fire engineers and construction lawyers, the case is a strong reminder that compliance at the time of construction does not always prevent significant rectification costs years later.
The Project
The Star Casino complex in Pyrmont NSW, includes a casino, shops, function centre and three residential towers. Between 2014 and 2016, three refurbishment projects were completed, with the first project, referred to as the Sovereign Lakes Expansion or Project Titan, forming the bulk of the claim.
The parties involved were:
- The casino – The Star Entertainment Sydney Properties Pty Ltd, “Star Casino”
- The builder – Buildcorp Group Pty Ltd trading as “Buildcorp Interiors”
- The architect – Malone Buchan Laird & Bawden Pty Ltd trading as “The Buchan Group”
- The ACP installer – Ausrise Aluminium Pty Ltd (Buildcorp’s subcontractor)
- The insurer – Ausrise’s insurers, joined as Ausrise is in liquidation
In January 2014, The Buchan Group commenced architectural design work and was instructed to design a new façade matching the existing appearance of the building. Their original design specified QuadroClad, an aluminium honeycomb core product regarded as non-combustible.
In June 2014, Buildcorp began their pre-construction services which included reviewing the architect’s design and how to best deliver the project. The original cladding product appeared hard to source and so an alternative was suggested, presumably by the Builder.
Ausrise provided shop drawings using Alpolic FR. Alpolic FR was an aluminium composite panel (ACP) made by Mitsubishi Plastics and distributed in Australia by SGI Architectural. Star Casino approved the product substitution.
The ACPs were installed on the external façade of two buildings during a period when concerns regarding combustible cladding were rapidly increasing. The Lacrosse apartment fire in Melbourne in November 2014 became a major Australian warning sign regarding façade fire spread involving ACPs. The Grenfell Tower fire in London in 2017 then triggered widespread regulatory reform internationally.
In December 2017, NSW Department of Planning & Environment issued a notice to Star Casino to audit whether there was a fire safety risk posed by external wall cladding.
In 2018, structural engineer, Taylor Thomson Whitting, provided a Combustible Cladding Assessment and identified that the cladding was not BCA compliant. The department required Star Casino to engage a fire engineer to provide a detailed action plan for rectification and mitigation measures.
Star Casino engaged fire engineers, Performance Base Consulting, to provide a Cladding Assessment which was submitted to the department and FRNSW. Following that assessment, the Department issued a Fire Safety Order requiring Star Casino to remove all combustible ACPs, together with associated combustible insulation and sarking.
Star Casino complied.
Aluminium composite panels (ACPs)
While ACP-FR has a fire-retardant filler, it is still deemed combustible when tested to AS 1530.1.
The ACP chosen for these projects was Alpolic FR with a CodeMark Certificate of Conformity, which is recognised as acceptable documentary evidence under the NCC. Compliance, however, still depends on the product being used strictly within the scope and conditions of that certification.
The certificate certified that the cladding complied with BCA Volume One 2014: CP2 and CP4 “Fire Resistance” for wall and ceiling cladding and Specification C1.1 Fire-Resisting Construction, 2.4 Attachments not to impair fire-resistance.
In 2019, the CodeMark Certificate of Conformity for Alpolic FR was withdrawn.
The Building Code of Australia Issue
When assessing a building for compliance, the BCA in force at the time of construction must be applied. The relevant versions were BCA 2014 and 2015, and both contained specification C1.1 Fire-Resisting Construction > 2.4 Attachments not to impair fire-resistance. Read this article for more detail.
This “attachment concession” potentially allowed combustible materials to be used as attachments to otherwise non-combustible external walls. This clause became central to determining whether the ACP installation complied with the BCA at the time.
The Case
Star Casino sought to recoup approximately $4 million in damages. Although they had a contract with the builder, the architect, the certifiers and engineers, they chose to sue only the builder.
Buildcorp denied liability and commenced cross-claims against The Buchan Group and Ausrise Aluminium, the subcontractor responsible for the installation of the ACP cladding. As Ausrise Aluminium had entered liquidation, its insurers were joined to the proceedings. Cross-claims were also brought against several consultants involved in the project.
Christina Knorr was engaged by one of the consultants to prepare an expert report. Her technical input assisted the legal team during negotiations and contributed to the claims against that consultant being discontinued.
The Result
For Project Titan (the first project), the Court found that Buildcorp’s contractual role was construct-only, and it did not assume responsibility for design compliance with the BCA. Because Buildcorp did not carry design responsibility for that project, Star Casino failed in its claim against the builder for the majority of the rectification costs.
Star Casino failed in its claim against the builder in respect of the second project. Although they had a ‘Design and Construct’ contract, the installation of ACPs on the external façade complied with the BCA at the time of construction, given the ‘attachment exception’ in Clause 2.4 of Specification C1.1.
As Star Casino failed in its claim against the builder, it was unnecessary to resolve the builder’s cross-claims against the architect, who was only engaged on those projects.
Star Casino succeeded only in relation to the third project, where the Court accepted that property damage arose from the affixing and subsequent removal of non-compliant ACPs. Buildcorp was entitled to be indemnified by Ausrise, and Ausrise’s insurers were ordered to pay approximately $285,000.
Why This Case Matters
For construction lawyers, builders and architects, the Star Casino decision reinforces that contract wording significantly affects liability. Construct-only contracts, design responsibility clauses, product substitutions, and reliance on consultant certification can determine who ultimately bears the financial risk.
For fire engineers, the case demonstrates how technical cladding assessments can directly trigger regulatory enforcement and substantial rectification obligations. The Department’s decision to require full removal of combustible ACPs was based on the fire engineer’s report.
Cladding assessments can consider a building holistically and may support performance solutions or partial removal based on the specific level of risk, rather than requiring blanket full removal in every case. Where uncertainty exists, obtaining a second expert opinion can be critical before significant rectification works are undertaken.
A recurring issue in combustible cladding disputes is the NSW product ban, which did not have an automatic effect on buildings that already had ACPs installed before the ban. For more on the ban, read this article.
The presence of ACPs on a building does not automatically mean the building is non-compliant or presents an unacceptable fire safety risk. Compliance depends on the specific product, how it is installed, the applicable BCA requirements at the time of construction, and the overall fire performance of the building.
If you are looking for an experienced Expert Witness in fire safety, contact CJK Fire & Safety.