This 163 residental unit development in Penrith presented with a mix of waterproofing and façade-related concerns, alongside broader compliance and durability risks affecting common property and individual lots. MJ Engineering Projects (MJEP) was engaged to investigate the reported issues and prepare an expert witness report that documents observed conditions, outlines likely causes, and provides practical rectification pathways suitable for dispute resolution.
Our role focused on providing an independent, evidence-based expert witness opinion, including an assessment framework aligned with relevant statutory warranties and building standards, and clear recommendations that can be relied upon by stakeholders when defects, responsibility, and rectification scope are in question.
Project Background
The property is a multi-storey strata building with reinforced concrete structure and mixed façade elements including brickwork, cladding, and aluminium-framed windows and doors. Balconies and courtyards form a key part of the building envelope and were central to the investigation due to recurring water management and interface risks.
MJEP’s expert witness report approach considered not only visible symptoms, but also systemic building-envelope drivers, such as drainage and waterproofing detailing at thresholds, outlets, and transitions, as well as façade gaps and service penetrations that can create repeat failure points if not properly diagnosed.
Where the matter requires tribunal-ready independence, the report framework also recognises the duty to the Court and the need for impartial methodology, which is why MJEP’s expert witness reports are structured to be clear, consistent, and defensible.
Scope of Remedial Works / Scope of works
- Assess waterproofing performance risks at balcony and courtyard interfaces, including door thresholds and outlet detailing, and nominate rectification pathways that address causes rather than surface symptoms.
- Review façade discontinuities (gaps between elements and interfaces) that may allow moisture entry, with recommendations to restore continuity and weatherproofing function.
- Investigate and document internal wet-area risk themes (falls, movement joints, and waterproofing terminations) where recurring patterns indicate installation or detailing deficiencies.
- Record and recommend responses to durability and structural-risk indicators in common areas, including cracking and cover-related concerns that can accelerate corrosion and spalling if left unmanaged.
- Preparation of a structured expert witness report setting out methodologies, findings, photographic evidence, opinions on cause, and recommended rectification in compliance against the NCC, BCA, HBA, Schedule 7 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 and NCAT Procedural Direction 3: Expert Witnesses.
- Assistance to the client’s legal team with clarifications, schedules in reply and responses to opposing position.
- Destructive and non-destructive testing to verify the extent of defects, material performance, and compliance with design requirements.
Key Challenges and Solutions
Waterproofing interfaces and systemic defect patterns
A key challenge in strata disputes is separating “local damage” from repeating causal pathways. In this case, balcony and courtyard interfaces, drainage outlet detailing, and wet-area performance characteristics were treated as potential systemic drivers requiring more than patch repairs.
The solution is a diagnosis-led scope supported by an expert witness report that ties observed outcomes to building physics, interfaces, and construction detailing, reducing the risk of repeat failures.
Durability and long-term asset protection
Common property cracking and reinforcement durability concerns can become expensive if they progress into corrosion-driven spalling. The report identifies the need for structured engineering review and an appropriate rectification methodology, rather than ad-hoc repairs, to protect long-term performance.
Dispute context and evidentiary clarity
The expert witness report format is designed to support negotiations, NCAT pathways, or legal advice with consistent defect descriptions, rationale, and recommended outcomes.
Conclusion
This project required more than a defect list. It required an expert witness perspective that links observed building conditions to likely causes, identifies where specialist verification is needed, and outlines practical rectification pathways that can be actioned with confidence. Where stakeholders need to move from uncertainty to a defensible repair plan, MJEP can support the process through an expert witness report and, if the matter progresses into delivery, through remedial superintendent oversight to help ensure repairs are executed to a compliant, durable standard.
