{"id":2455,"date":"2026-05-19T11:32:17","date_gmt":"2026-05-19T10:32:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/?p=2455"},"modified":"2026-05-19T11:32:17","modified_gmt":"2026-05-19T10:32:17","slug":"mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\/","title":{"rendered":"Mind the Gap: Owners Corporation 1 Plan No. PS 640567Y v Shangri\u2011La Construction Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 117"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong><u>Introduction<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>A recent decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria poses an important question for the construction sector in particular: where statutory and\/or strict liability regimes which concern actions taken by directors or officers are not covered by professional indemnity (\u201c<strong>PI<\/strong>\u201d) insurance, is directors\u2019 and officers\u2019 (\u201c<strong>D&amp;O<\/strong>\u201d) insurance able to plug any gap in cover?<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Background<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Shangri\u2011La Construction Pty Ltd (\u201c<strong>SCP<\/strong>\u201d) was appointed to design and construct a residential development in Victoria, Australia. SCP\u2019s Managing Director, Mr Naqebullah, recommended that the external fa\u00e7ade incorporated expanded polystyrene (\u201c<strong>EPS<\/strong>\u201d) cladding, which was later determined to be non\u2011compliant with applicable building regulations. Following remediation works funded by the State of Victoria (the \u201c<strong>State<\/strong>\u201d) (similar to the Building Safety Fund here in England &amp; Wales), it pursued an action to recover such costs under Section\u00a0137F of the Building Act 1993 (Vic) (\u201c<strong>Section 137F<\/strong>\u201d), which was enacted in 2019. Section 137F is a strict liability provision which grants the State rights of subrogation against officers and\/ or directors of contractors for the cost of cladding rectification work.<\/p>\n<p>Pursuant to Section 137F, the State obtained summary judgment against Mr\u00a0Naqebullah in the sum of approximately $3.17\u00a0million plus interest. Mr\u00a0Naqebullah then sought indemnity under two consecutive <em>\u201cclaims made and notified\u201d<\/em> professional indemnity policies taken out by SCP (the \u201c<strong>Policies<\/strong>\u201d).<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Key questions<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Court was required to determine:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Whether Mr\u00a0Naqebullah was an \u201cInsured\u201d under the Policies;<\/li>\n<li>Whether a \u201cClaim\u201d had been made and notified within the relevant periods of insurance; and<\/li>\n<li>Whether the liability fell within the insuring clause, which responded to civil liability incurred in the conduct of the insured\u2019s professional business.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><strong><u>Judgment<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><u>Insured status<\/u><\/p>\n<p>The Court held that Mr\u00a0Naqebullah was an insured person under the Policies. Although he was not named individually on the certificates of insurance, the policy documents, read as a whole (including the proposal forms), demonstrated that directors were intended to fall within the class of insureds.<\/p>\n<p><u>Claims made and notified<\/u><\/p>\n<p>The Policies were written on a strict claims made and notified basis. However, the State\u2019s ability claim under Section 137F did not come into force until after the expiry of the Policies. As a result, and unsurprisingly, the Section 137F claim against Mr\u00a0Naqebullah could not have been made during the relevant periods of insurance. Moreover, attempts to treat earlier proceedings involving SCP as the relevant claim, or to attach the Section 137F claim back to earlier notifications, were rejected as undermining the commercial purpose of claims made insurance.<\/p>\n<p><u>Scope of the professional indemnity cover<\/u><\/p>\n<p>Most interestingly from our perspective, the Court found that the liability imposed on Mr\u00a0Naqebullah was not incurred in the conduct of professional business. \u201c<em>Professional Business<\/em>\u201d was defined by the Policies as design, including advice in relation to design in accordance with all relevant building, construction or engineering codes and standards.<\/p>\n<p>It was Mr Naqebullah\u2019s case that providing services as a registered building practitioner in drafting a specification under a design and construct contract constituted the provision of professional services of a skilful character as contemplated by the Policies.<\/p>\n<p>However, no element of the State\u2019s case against Mr Naqebullah involved provision of any design, specification or advice as contemplated by the \u201c<em>Professional Business<\/em>\u201d definition under the Policies, nor did Mr Naqebullah\u2019s liability to the State depend in any way upon breach of a professional duty by him or by SCP. Instead, his liability arose solely (and strictly) under Section 137F as he was an officer of SCP at the time of the non\u2011compliant work.<\/p>\n<p><u>Analysis and implications<\/u><\/p>\n<p>This decision highlights an area of tension between statutory and\/or strict liability regimes and professional indemnity insurance. Even where the factual background involves professional services, insurers will inevitably look closely at the legal basis on which liability is imposed. Where that basis arises in statute and\/or by strict liability, PI insurance policies may not respond.<\/p>\n<p>When that liability concerns actions taken by directors or officers, the question then becomes whether D&amp;O insurance is able to plug any gap in cover.<\/p>\n<p>Whilst there are no analogous strict liabilities directly arising from the design or construction of buildings here in England &amp; Wales, sections 40 and 161 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (the \u201c<strong>BSA<\/strong>\u201d) did introduce offences for officers who commit, consent to or negligently fail to prevent breaches of the Building Act 1984 (including contravention of the Building Regulations) and breaches of Part 2 or Part 4 of the BSA (including obstructing building control or failing to manage Higher Risk Buildings).<\/p>\n<p>While liability imposed on an individual by virtue of holding office might ordinarily be expected to fall within the scope of D&amp;O insurance, such policies often contain broad professional services exclusions. This creates a real risk that policyholders may find themselves without cover under either policy.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>For policyholders and brokers, the decision underlines the importance of reviewing PI and D&amp;O cover together, rather than in isolation. Particular attention should be paid to the scope of the professional services definition and insuring clause alongside the breadth of professional services exclusions in D&amp;O policies, and the extent to which programmes are designed to respond coherently to building safety liabilities.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Authors<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/people\/abigail-smith\/\">Abigail Smith,<\/a> Associate<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/people\/pawinder-manak\/\">Pawinder Manak,<\/a> Trainee Solicitor<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction A recent decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria poses an important question for the construction sector in particular: [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":70,"featured_media":2456,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[296,373],"class_list":["post-2455","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","tag-property-risks","tag-financial-risks"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mind the Gap: Owners Corporation 1 Plan No. PS 640567Y v Shangri\u2011La Construction Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 117 - Fenchurch Law UK<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mind the Gap: Owners Corporation 1 Plan No. PS 640567Y v Shangri\u2011La Construction Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 117 - Fenchurch Law UK\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Introduction A recent decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria poses an important question for the construction sector in particular: [&hellip;]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Fenchurch Law UK\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-05-19T10:32:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/6\/2026\/05\/shutterstock_2762179965-scaled.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1440\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Fenchurch Law\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Fenchurch Law\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Fenchurch Law\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/3e7dcf6b2f70b28d05cd5fc9b8a269f7\"},\"headline\":\"Mind the Gap: Owners Corporation 1 Plan No. PS 640567Y v Shangri\u2011La Construction Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 117\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-19T10:32:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":892,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/6\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/shutterstock_2762179965-scaled.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Property Risks\",\"financial risks\"],\"articleSection\":[\"News\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\\\/\",\"name\":\"Mind the Gap: Owners Corporation 1 Plan No. PS 640567Y v Shangri\u2011La Construction Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 117 - Fenchurch Law UK\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/6\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/shutterstock_2762179965-scaled.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-19T10:32:17+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/3e7dcf6b2f70b28d05cd5fc9b8a269f7\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/6\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/shutterstock_2762179965-scaled.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/6\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/shutterstock_2762179965-scaled.jpg\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":1440},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mind the Gap: Owners Corporation 1 Plan No. PS 640567Y v Shangri\u2011La Construction Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 117\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/\",\"name\":\"Fenchurch Law UK\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/3e7dcf6b2f70b28d05cd5fc9b8a269f7\",\"name\":\"Fenchurch Law\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/2de588cc76036bbe8e2d1d5586b90da48c681e239ebf7b67ae24078acacb22ed?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/2de588cc76036bbe8e2d1d5586b90da48c681e239ebf7b67ae24078acacb22ed?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/2de588cc76036bbe8e2d1d5586b90da48c681e239ebf7b67ae24078acacb22ed?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Fenchurch Law\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/author\\\/jbalm\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mind the Gap: Owners Corporation 1 Plan No. PS 640567Y v Shangri\u2011La Construction Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 117 - Fenchurch Law UK","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\/","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mind the Gap: Owners Corporation 1 Plan No. PS 640567Y v Shangri\u2011La Construction Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 117 - Fenchurch Law UK","og_description":"Introduction A recent decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria poses an important question for the construction sector in particular: [&hellip;]","og_url":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\/","og_site_name":"Fenchurch Law UK","article_published_time":"2026-05-19T10:32:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":1440,"url":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/6\/2026\/05\/shutterstock_2762179965-scaled.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Fenchurch Law","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Fenchurch Law","Estimated reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\/"},"author":{"name":"Fenchurch Law","@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/#\/schema\/person\/3e7dcf6b2f70b28d05cd5fc9b8a269f7"},"headline":"Mind the Gap: Owners Corporation 1 Plan No. PS 640567Y v Shangri\u2011La Construction Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 117","datePublished":"2026-05-19T10:32:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\/"},"wordCount":892,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/6\/2026\/05\/shutterstock_2762179965-scaled.jpg","keywords":["Property Risks","financial risks"],"articleSection":["News"],"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\/","url":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\/","name":"Mind the Gap: Owners Corporation 1 Plan No. PS 640567Y v Shangri\u2011La Construction Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 117 - Fenchurch Law UK","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/6\/2026\/05\/shutterstock_2762179965-scaled.jpg","datePublished":"2026-05-19T10:32:17+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/#\/schema\/person\/3e7dcf6b2f70b28d05cd5fc9b8a269f7"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/6\/2026\/05\/shutterstock_2762179965-scaled.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/6\/2026\/05\/shutterstock_2762179965-scaled.jpg","width":2560,"height":1440},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/mind-the-gap-owners-corporation-1-plan-no-ps-640567y-v-shangri-la-construction-pty-ltd-2026-vsc-117\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mind the Gap: Owners Corporation 1 Plan No. PS 640567Y v Shangri\u2011La Construction Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 117"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/#website","url":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/","name":"Fenchurch Law UK","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/#\/schema\/person\/3e7dcf6b2f70b28d05cd5fc9b8a269f7","name":"Fenchurch Law","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2de588cc76036bbe8e2d1d5586b90da48c681e239ebf7b67ae24078acacb22ed?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2de588cc76036bbe8e2d1d5586b90da48c681e239ebf7b67ae24078acacb22ed?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2de588cc76036bbe8e2d1d5586b90da48c681e239ebf7b67ae24078acacb22ed?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Fenchurch Law"},"url":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/author\/jbalm\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2455","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/70"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2455"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2455\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2458,"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2455\/revisions\/2458"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2456"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2455"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2455"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2455"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}