Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 14 JULY 2026

Asset Management Disputes In Construction: Wear And Tear – Or A Systemic Defect Hiding In Plain Sight?

Holding Redlich
Holding Redlich
Contributor
Holding Redlich

Holding Redlich

Holding Redlich is a large national commercial firm with offices in Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney,...

View firm profile
Explore more from Holding Redlich

Asset management disputes in construction often emerge years after handover when repeated failures reveal underlying design or construction problems rather than simple maintenance issues. This article examines how to distinguish between ordinary wear and tear and systemic defects, exploring the legal frameworks, timing pressures, and strategic approaches that determine whether recurring problems represent routine deterioration or inherited liability.

AustraliaWealth Management

In our experience, the hardest asset management disputes are rarely about obvious defects at handover. They arise years later, and repeated failures start to look less like maintenance issues and more like an inherited design or construction problem. Common examples include balcony or podium leaks that return after patch repairs, façade movement across multiple elevations, plant that underperforms well before the expected design life, and compliance issues associated with combustible cladding.

The commercial difference between ordinary deterioration and a systemic defect is significant. If the issue is no more than the expected ageing of sealants, membranes, coatings, plant or finishes, it is usually a matter for planned maintenance and lifecycle budgeting.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from