Your Guide to the Home Building Compensation Fund (HBCF) in NSW
Last reviewed: 16 September 2026
Jurisdiction: New South Wales, Australia
Currency note (read once, then proceed): Two things are in motion. The Building (Approvals and Practitioners) Act 2026 (NSW) received Royal Assent on 14 August 2026 but commences on dates to be proclaimed; until then, Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) remains the insurance statute. Separately, the icare HBCF Eligibility Manual dated 2 March 2026 is in force. Confirm the live position on both — the Home Building Act insurance provisions and the current eligibility settings — before you contract, award, or commence. This caveat is stated in full here; treat it as standing throughout.
Key takeaways
HBCF is last-resort cover, not a day-to-day building warranty. It is designed to respond where a licensed builder or tradesperson can no longer meet contractual or statutory obligations because of insolvency, death, disappearance, or licence suspension for failing to comply with an NCAT or court money order.
Cover is generally required before residential building work starts, and before any money (including a deposit) is demanded or received, where the contract price exceeds the prescribed amount of $20,000 (GST-inclusive): section 92 of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) (the HBA).
Missing cover is a cash-flow event, not a paperwork event. Section 94 of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) restricts recovery for uninsured work. From 20 August 2024, section 8(2) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) also removes the statutory progress-payment right where residential building work is done in contravention of section 92 of the HBA.
A Certificate of Eligibility is not a Certificate of Insurance. Eligibility is a builder credential with open job value and construction-type limits. The Certificate of Insurance is the project document that satisfies section 92.
Cover is capped. The Home Building Regulation 2014 prescribes a minimum of $340,000 per dwelling. icare publishes that figure for policies issued on or after 1 February 2012; the $300,000 figure applies only to policies issued before that date. Both figures include claims by previous owners. Non-completion cover may also be limited to not less than 20% of the contract price.
The multi-storey exemption takes HBCF out of some apartment projects. It does not take out statutory warranties, the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) duty of care, Residential Apartment Buildings Act powers, or the strata building bond.
Introduction
A deposit paid on a Friday afternoon, a Certificate of Insurance that never hits the register, or a builder whose open job value is already full, can decide a New South Wales residential file before a single brick is laid.
The Home Building Compensation Fund (HBCF) is the last-resort insurance scheme that sits over much of the State’s residential building work, and it is one of the recurring issues on which our New South Wales building and construction lawyers advise. It is also known as home building compensation insurance and, still, as home warranty insurance. icare issues the cover. The State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA) regulates the scheme. Part 6 of the HBA is the statute.
This guide is written for the New South Wales construction industry as a whole: licensed builders and nominated supervisors, developers and spec-builders, specialist trades contracting direct to owners, contracts administrators, principals, owners corporations and strata managers, purchasers and conveyancers, directors giving deeds of indemnity, brokers and service providers, and insolvency practitioners. Homeowners sit inside the scheme as beneficiaries. They are not the only people the scheme binds.
HBCF is not a substitute for statutory warranties, a security of payment right, or an NCAT work order. It does not cover delay, disagreement, or defective work while the builder is still able to perform. It is a residual product that responds after a trigger, within tight limits, on a correctly classified residential job.
Classify the job first. Then ask whether cover is required, whether an exemption applies, whether a certificate is actually in force, and whether a trigger has occurred. Getting that sequence wrong is how a builder loses a progress claim, a developer prices the wrong risk stack, and an owner lodges an insurance claim that was never available.
At a glance — which HBCF question you actually have
The situation | What actually matters | The clock | Where this guide takes you |
About to sign, or take a deposit, on residential work over $20,000 | Section 92 certificate before money or work | Immediate | When cover is required |
Job looks exempt (4+ storeys, build-to-rent, housing provider, council) | Exemption drafting, and what replaces HBCF | Before contract / DA | Exemptions |
Builder cannot get a certificate, or open job value is full | Eligibility, construction-type limit, deed | Before award | Eligibility |
Work started, or money taken, without cover | Section 94 and SOP Act section 8(2) | Already running | Uninsured work |
Defects, builder still trading | Not an HBCF claim yet — warranties, Commission, NCAT | Section 18E | Cover vs warranties |
Builder insolvent, dead, disappeared, or licence suspended on a money order | Trigger event — claim pathway | 12 months / 2 years / 6 years | Running a claim |
Purchaser, OC or conveyancer checking a resale | Certificate register, sale disclosure | Sale contract | Supply chain |
Insurer declined or underpaid | NCAT insurance appeal as a building claim | Appeal window | Forums |
Common pitfalls and worked scenarios
The scheme is not conceptually difficult. The failures are mechanical: the wrong classification, the missing certificate, the premature claim, the cap that was never read. These scenarios are the files that recur.
Scenario 1 — The $18,000 + $18,000 split contract
Same owner, same builder, kitchen then laundry, two weeks apart, two invoices under $20,000, no certificate. Section 92(4) aggregates the prices. Cover was required. The builder issues a payment claim for the second stage.
Trap — section 92(2) of the HBA payment bar, s94 recovery bar, SOP Act section 8(2) progress-payment bar. The owner’s statutory warranties are still live. The builder's quantum meruit case, if any, has to go through s94(1A) of the HBA. Staging the invoices did not stage the insurance obligation.
Scenario 2 — Four-storey apartment building, no HBCF, waterproofing failure in year 4
Multi-storey exemption correctly applied. No HBCF claim. Live paths: section 18B of the HBA major defect (six years from the occupation certificate under s3C of the HBA), Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) section 37, a Residential Apartment Buildings (Compliance and Enforcement Powers) Act 2020 (NSW) (the RAB Act) building work rectification order if still inside the relevant window, and the strata bond if still on foot. The developer who treated “no insurance” as “no exposure” is defending the wrong way. The owners corporation that lodged an HBCF claim first has started in the wrong forum.
Scenario 3 — Builder insolvent at 60% complete, $2.2 million house
Trigger: insolvency. Incomplete-work claim. 20% of $2.2 million is $440,000, then the $340,000 dwelling cap bites. Deposit and progress recovery are part of actual loss, not extra. The owner still has to fund the gap to complete. The completion builder needs a new section 92 (Home Building Act) certificate for the completion contract. Subcontractors are unsecured creditors of the insolvent builder, not HBCF beneficiaries. “We have HBCF” is true. “We are whole” is not.
Scenario 4 — Defects in year 2, builder trading, then disappearance in year 3
Owner lodges HBCF in year 2. No trigger. Claim is premature. If they notified the loss during the period and diligently pursued (Commission, then NCAT), section 103BB may still be available when disappearance occurs in year 3, even if the two-year other-defect cover has expired. If they did nothing but wait for HBCF, the other-defect cover is gone and delayed-claim diligence is missing. This is the scenario that justifies notifying early.
Scenario 5 — Director signed a $200,000 eligibility deed; company liquidated; icare pays and comes for the director
Last-resort for the owner is a subrogated recovery against the indemnifier. The deed was not a banker’s formality. Independent legal and financial advice before signing is not courtesy language.
Recurring failures
Paying a deposit on a PDF that is not on the register
Assuming eligibility equals insured
Starting work “while the broker sorts it”
Treating a four-storey building as exempt without an NCC storey count
Running HBCF as the only strategy against a solvent builder
Missing the section 103BB notification window while fighting in NCAT
Ignoring OJV until the certificate is refused the week before commencement
Name mismatch (company contracted, individual’s policy)
Variation value never re-certified
Confusing a work order with the money-order licence-suspension trigger
Classify the job before you talk about insurance
HBCF only attaches to residential building work that the Home Building Act actually catches. Commercial construct-only work, civil and infrastructure packages, and specialist work done with no connection to a dwelling sit outside the scheme. Treating every site as an HBCF site, or treating none of them as one, is the first classification error.
Three things decide whether HBCF is even in play: what counts as residential building work, how the $20,000 threshold is counted, and why the identity of the contracting party changes the product even when it does not remove the obligation.
Residential building work is the on-switch
HBCF follows the HBA definition of residential building work, not the Building Code of Australia (BCA) class of the building and not the parties’ commercial label for the job.
Schedule 1 of the HBA treats as residential building work the work involved in, or in coordinating or supervising, the construction of a dwelling, alterations or additions to a dwelling, or the repairing, renovation, decoration or protective treatment of a dwelling. Specialist work — plumbing and drainage (other than roof plumbing), gas-fitting and electrical wiring — can be residential building work when it is done in connection with a dwelling. Pure commercial specialist work is not an HBCF problem.
Residential and commercial work are different legal worlds in New South Wales. The HBA (licensing, HBCF, non-excludable warranties) governs residential building work. Ordinary commercial building work is governed by the contract, overlaid by the SOP Act, the Australian Consumer Law where its tests are met, and the Design and Building Practitioners Act where it applies. Mixing those regimes on a mixed-use site is how a contracts administrator insures the wrong parcel and leaves the residential lots exposed.
The Home Building Compensation Fund in New South Wales is compulsory last-resort insurance for residential building work above the prescribed $20,000 threshold, unless a statutory or regulatory exemption applies.
The $20,000 threshold is GST-inclusive and it aggregates
Section 92 of the HBA does not apply if the contract price does not exceed the amount prescribed by the regulations, or, if the contract price is not known, the reasonable market cost of the labour and materials involved does not exceed that amount: section 92(3). SIRA publishes that prescribed amount as $20,000 including GST.
Section 92(4) then closes the obvious workaround. If the same parties enter into two or more contracts to carry out work in stages, the contract price for the threshold is the sum of the prices under each of the contracts. Splitting a $38,000 kitchen into two $19,000 invoices does not take the work outside section 92.
Keep the three Home Building Act money lines separate. They share a number and they do not share a consequence:
the written-form band for small contracts (section 7AAA)
the full written-contract band (section 7)
the insurance threshold (section 92)
A contract can be in writing and still be uninsured. A contract can sit under $20,000, need no HBCF, and still carry statutory warranties.
Who the contracting party is changes the product, not always the obligation
The obligation in section 92 sits on the person who contracts to do the residential building work. The beneficiary of the policy is a different question.
Typical contracting structures, and what they usually mean for HBCF:
Owner-occupier engaging a licensed builder. Cover is required above the threshold. The owner is the obvious beneficiary.
Developer within section 3A (commonly, a person for whom four or more dwellings are being constructed, or certain retirement or disability accommodation). Cover is still required unless an exemption applies. Sale disclosure under section 96A is a separate obligation.
Spec-builder building on its own land with no purchaser yet. Cover is still required before commencement under the “work not carried out under a contract” rules (section 96). Cover travels to the eventual purchaser. The developer-builder cannot claim on its own policy while it still owns the stock.
Owner-builder engaging subcontractors. Owner-builder work itself is not insured under the HBCF product (section 95). A contractor doing residential building work for an owner-builder under a contract is still inside section 92: section 92(6).
Specialist trade contracting direct to the owner. Same $20,000 rule. Kitchens, bathrooms, pools, re-roofs and structural waterproofing are the usual misses.
Subcontractor under a head contractor. HBCF ordinarily sits on the residential head contract with the owner, not on the subcontract. The subcontractor’s recovery path is contract, the SOP Act, and, in the right case, the Contractors Debts Act 1997 (NSW) — not HBCF.
Mixed-use, Class 2, and “is this even residential?”
Map the site parcel by parcel, trade by trade. Ground-floor retail and apartments above can sit in different legal worlds on the same crane. HBCF can attach to the residential parcels and not the commercial ones.
Class 2 does not, by itself, mean HBCF applies. Height plus multiple dwellings is the multi-storey exemption test, using the National Construction Code (NCC) / Building Code of Australia (BCA) meaning of "storey" and "rise in storeys", not the marketing brochure. Three-storey townhouses are generally inside the scheme. A new building with a rise in storeys of more than three that contains 2 or more separate dwellings is the classic exemption. Getting that count wrong is a developer-side classification failure, not an insurance-admin failure.
The NSW legal architecture behind HBCF
HBCF is a statutory insurance scheme, not a commercial underwriting product a builder can shop. The Act sets the obligation. The Regulation sets thresholds, exemptions and permitted limits. icare issues the complying contracts. SIRA regulates the scheme and grants special exemptions. Building Commission NSW runs licensing and the licence-suspension trigger. NCAT hears building claims, including many insurance-claim disputes.
Separating these instruments is what stops a contracts administrator, a director or a purchaser from treating a Certificate of Eligibility as cover, or a Commission complaint as a claim.
Part 6 is the statute; icare is the insurer; SIRA is the regulator
The architecture, in the order it actually operates:
Home Building Act 1989 (NSW), Part 6 — compulsory cover, beneficiaries, period of cover, claims machinery, exemptions and offences (sections 90–103EF).
Home Building Regulation 2014 (NSW) — the $20,000 threshold, exemptions (including clauses 56 to 59C), insolvency, death and disappearance definitions, delayed-claim diligence, and permitted cover limits.
icare HBCF — currently the issuer of complying contracts of insurance for the scheme.
SIRA — scheme regulator, special exemptions under section 97, exemption register, insurance guidelines, and the approved certificate form.
Building Commission NSW — contractor licensing, financial-standing crossover, and the licence suspension that can itself become a claim trigger.
NCAT Consumer and Commercial Division — building claims under Part 3A, including claims about insurance.
Part 6B of the HBA also allows the section 92 requirement to be met by an "alternative indemnity product". In current practice, HBCF insurance issued by icare is the product the industry actually uses. Do not treat an off-market warranty, a parent-company deed, or a developer retention as a complying Part 6 contract.
Certificate of Eligibility, contract of insurance, Certificate of Insurance
These are three different instruments. Collapsing them is how a job starts uninsured.
Certificate of Eligibility confirms the builder may apply for HBCF cover, subject to open job value, construction-type (H01 to H05) and financial conditions. It is not cover for any project.
Contract of insurance is the Part 6 contract, in the contractor’s name, that must comply with the Act (including section 99).
Certificate of Insurance, in a form approved by the Authority, is the document that must be provided to the other party before work or payment: section 92(1)(b) and section 92(2)(b). This is the satisfaction piece.
Check the public record on the HBCF Certificates Register at Verify NSW. A PDF in a tender folder is not the same thing as a certificate on the register.
HBCF is additional to warranties, not a substitute for them
Section 18B of the HBA implies statutory warranties into residential building work. Section 18G makes void any provision that purports to restrict or remove them. Those warranties run whether or not a policy exists.
HBCF, by contrast, is last-resort cover for loss from non-completion and from breach of statutory warranty where the owner cannot recover from the builder because of a trigger. A defects liability clause does not displace the warranties. A Certificate of Insurance does not displace an NCAT work order, a Building Commission investigation, or a duty-of-care claim under section 37 of the DBP Act.
If the builder is still trading, the live file is usually warranties, access, a Commission complaint and, if needed, NCAT — not HBCF. That sequencing is covered in our guide to building defects, warranties and the duty of care and our guide to NCAT and Building Commission NSW. This article is the insurance overlay.
The 2026 Building Act does not let you treat HBCF as already gone
The Building (Approvals and Practitioners) Act 2026 (NSW) has passed. Its operative framework is not fully commenced. It is expected to reshape practitioner registration and to repeal elements of the HBA. Until commencement proclamations and regulations are in force, Part 6 remains the insurance statute. Do not price, contract or commence on the basis that HBCF has already been repealed.
When HBCF cover is required — and the exemptions that actually matter
Section 92 is a start-work gate and a payment gate. The exemptions are real, but they are narrower than the industry conversation about them. A job is not exempt because it is “apartments”, “build-to-rent”, “for a council”, or “under $20,000 if we invoice it in two contracts”. Each exemption has a text, and most of the important ones have a contract-drafting condition.
For developers and contracts administrators, three questions do the work: the operative rule, the work that is simply outside the definition, and the carve-outs that actually take a project out of the scheme.
The section 92 rule in operative terms
A person must not do residential building work under a contract unless:
a contract of insurance that complies with the Act is in force in relation to that work in the name under which the person contracted to do the work, and
a certificate of insurance evidencing that contract, in a form approved by the Authority, has been provided to the other party (or one of them): section 92(1).
A person must not demand or receive a payment under that contract — whether as a deposit or other payment, and whether or not work has commenced — unless the same two conditions are met: section 92(2).
Maximum penalty: 1,000 penalty units for a corporation, 200 penalty units otherwise. An individual convicted of a second or subsequent offence under section 92(1) or (2) is liable to a penalty not exceeding 500 penalty units or imprisonment for up to 12 months, or both: section 92(2A).
Two further operative rules are routinely missed:
Insurance for the original work extends to rectification of that work. A separate policy is not required for the rectification itself: section 92(5).
Section 92 extends to residential building work that is also owner-builder work when it is done under a contract with the owner-builder: section 92(6).
On contracts in the section 7 band, the contract must also state the cost of the Part 6 cover. Omitting that line is a form defect. It is not a substitute for actually obtaining the certificate.
Work that is simply outside the definition, and the small-job exemption
Not every job on a residential street is residential building work. Work that falls outside clause 2 of Schedule 1 is outside HBCF. Kit-home component supply is also outside, provided the supplier is not assembling the home.
Built-in furniture work, including minor lighting installation as part of that furniture, is exempt under clause 58 of the Home Building Regulation. SIRA publishes worked scenarios. The edge case is joinery that is, in substance, a renovation. If the scope is a kitchen strip-out, services relocation and structural opening, do not hide behind the furniture exemption.
The small-job exemption is the prescribed $20,000 GST-inclusive threshold. Warranties still apply. The SOP Act section 8(2) insurance bar does not engage if cover was never required. Section 92(4) aggregation still applies if the same parties stage the work.
The large multi-storey exemption, and the 2023 contract-specified exemptions
SIRA’s current exemption list is the practical starting point. Confirm the Regulation text before relying on any of them.
Large multi-storey buildings. The construction of a multi-storey building — one that has a rise in storeys of more than three and contains 2 or more separate dwellings. “Storey” and “rise in storeys” have the same meaning as in the Building Code of Australia / National Construction Code. This is the developer-critical carve-out.
Worked example — classification:
three-storey townhouses — generally not exempt
a four-storey residential flat building with ground-level parking — turns on the NCC storey count, not on whether anyone calls the ground floor a “storey”
a four-storey building of three dwellings — the “2 or more separate dwellings” limb still has to be met
The exemption takes HBCF out. It does not take out statutory warranties, DBP Act registration and the section 37 duty, RAB Act prohibition / stop-work / building work rectification orders, or the strata building bond. “No HBCF” is not “no exposure”. It is a different cost and liability stack.
Build-to-rent, recognised housing providers, council developers, public sector. From 2 March 2023, residential building work for a build-to-rent scheme (clause 59B), for recognised housing providers (clause 59A), and for a developer that is a council (clause 59C) can be exempt. From 1 September 2018, work for public sector agencies can be exempt under section 103E. For each of those carve-outs — build-to-rent, recognised housing providers, council and public sector — the contract must specify that the licensed contractor is relying on the exemption. A builder who prices a premium line on an exempt build-to-rent or community-housing job is pricing a cost that should not be there. A builder who forgets the contractual reliance wording can argue themselves back into a section 92 problem.
Retirement villages. Clause 57 provides a partial exemption for certain work in specified types of retirement village. It is not a blanket village-wide carve-out.
Owner-builder work and section 97 special exemptions. There is no HBCF product for the owner-builder’s own work (section 95). Sale disclosure is a different obligation. Subcontractors the owner-builder engages above the threshold still need their own cover. Section 97 special exemptions can be granted by SIRA in exceptional cases, may be conditional, sit on a public register, and attract false-information offences. SIRA’s published position is that a section 97 exemption will not be granted after work has commenced. They are not a cure for a job that already started uninsured.
Spec builds and developer-builders
The trigger is the licensed contractor doing residential building work over the threshold, not the existence of a homeowner. Cover is required before commencement even with no signed purchaser. Cover travels with the property. A developer-builder claiming on a policy issued in respect of its own work, while it still owns the stock, is claiming in the wrong capacity.
On sale, section 96A requires a developer to attach the certificate of insurance to the contract of sale. Section 96 deals with residential building work not carried out under a contract. Section 95 deals with the owner-builder warning. Conveyancers who treat “no certificate in the pack” as a missing annexure, rather than a possible statutory sale defect, are reading the wrong problem.
Certificates, contract price and the mechanics that satisfy section 92
Section 92 is satisfied by a complying contract of insurance in the right name, plus an approved-form certificate given to the other party before work or money. Everything else — eligibility, the broker portal, a draft certificate, a “it’s in the system” email — is upstream administration.
Getting to commencement means settling four things: what must be on the certificate, when it must be given, what happens when the contract price moves, and how a purchaser or owners corporation checks cover after the fact.
What must be on the Certificate of Insurance, and when it must be given
The certificate has to evidence the contract of insurance, in a form approved by the Authority. In practice, icare’s certificate identifies the homeowner, the builder, the property, the contract price and a short description of the work. The legal trap is name-matching.
The contract of insurance must be in force “in the name under which the person contracted to do the work”: section 92(1)(a). Individual versus company versus trust versus trading name is not a clerical preference. If the building contract is with ABC Constructions Pty Ltd and the certificate is in the name of the director’s personal licence, the section 92 condition may not be met.
The certificate must be provided before work starts and before any money is demanded or received, including a deposit. The owner’s practical sequence is simple: do not pay the deposit until the certificate is in hand and visible on Verify NSW. The builder’s practical sequence is the same, in reverse: do not invoice, and do not start, until that is true.
The pre-commencement / pre-payment checklist
Run this before the first dollar changes hands and before anyone is on site. If any line is unresolved, the work is not ready to start.
Is the work residential building work over $20,000 (GST-inclusive), counting all staged contracts between the same parties together (section 92(4))?
Does an exemption actually apply on the Regulation text — and, for the council, public-sector, build-to-rent and housing-provider carve-outs, does the contract contain the required reliance wording?
Is there a contract of insurance in force in the exact name under which the person contracted to do the work — company, trust, or individual — not a related licence?
Has an approved-form Certificate of Insurance been provided to the other party?
Does the certificate appear on the HBCF Certificates Register on Verify NSW, not just as a PDF in a folder?
Does the insured contract price on the certificate match the current contract price, including variations?
Has the register been checked for claims already paid against the same property, which reduce the remaining limit?
Only when every line is satisfied should a deposit be demanded, received, or paid, and only then should work begin.
Variations that move the insured contract price
The certificate is issued against a stated contract price. Material variation and scope creep can leave later work sitting outside the insured envelope. That is a contracts-administration discipline, not a year-end cleanup.
Keep a variation register that triggers a certificate refresh when the price or the description of the work materially changes. Rectification of the original work is already extended by section 92(5). New work that is not rectification of the original work is not.
Checking cover after the fact
The HBCF Certificates Register shows whether a policy was issued, the insured builder, the property address, and whether claims have already been paid. Certificates from 1 July 2010 are the register population icare points owners to. Claims already paid reduce the remaining limit.
Purchasers, owners corporations and financiers should search the register, not rely on a photocopy in a data room. A previous claim against the same policy can quietly exhaust the headroom a later owner thought they had.
Uninsured work — section 94, SOP Act section 8(2), and why this is a cash-flow event
Uninsured residential work is not only an offence. It is a recovery bar, a quantum meruit problem, and, since 20 August 2024, a statutory progress-payment problem. A builder who “starts while the broker sorts it” can find that the progress claim, the adjudication, and the contractual invoice are all worth less than the cost of the paper they were printed on.
This section is the commercial heart of the scheme for builders, subcontractors and anyone administering payment on a residential job.
Section 92 as a payment bar, not just an offence
Section 92(2) prohibits demanding or receiving payment unless the complying policy is in force in the right name and the certificate has been provided. That is independent of whether work has started. A deposit taken on an uninsured contract is a prohibited receipt, not a commercial holding fee.
Penalty exposure sits alongside Building Commission / licensing overlay. The payment bar is the part that hits cash flow first.
Section 94 — no contractual recovery, and quantum meruit only if it is just and equitable
Section 94 is the civil consequence of doing the work without the required insurance in force. In outline, a contractor is not entitled to damages or to enforce any other remedy in respect of the uninsured work, including quantum meruit, unless a court or tribunal later finds recovery just and equitable under section 94(1A).
That is stricter than section 10 of the HBA (unlicensed work / contract-form defects), which kills contractual remedies but leaves quantum meruit open. Section 94 starts from "no recovery", then opens a broad just-and-equitable discretion of the kind discussed in Eddy Lau Constructions Pty Ltd v Transdevelopment Enterprise Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 273 and subsequently applied in decisions including Hanna v Kersten; Kersten v Hanna [2019] NSWCATCD 26, where the Tribunal expressly adopted the Eddy Lau approach and considered whether the insurance default arose from ignorance or misunderstanding rather than deliberate contravention before refusing quantum meruit on the facts. While Eddy Lau principally concerned the availability of recovery under the statutory just-and-equitable discretion, Syed Ahmad Shoaib Ali Pty Ltd v Jandson Pty Ltd; Jandson Pty Ltd v Syed Ahmad Shoaib Ali Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP 228 applied the statutory disentitlement in a different context, holding that an uninsured builder could not rely on contractual forfeiture rights to retain a deposit.
In Syed Ahmad Shoaib Ali Pty Ltd v Jandson Pty Ltd; Jandson Pty Ltd v Syed Ahmad Shoaib Ali Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP 228, the Appeal Panel held that an uninsured builder could not retain the particular deposit in issue because retention depended upon enforcing contractual forfeiture rights arising from the owner's repudiation, and those rights were unavailable by reason of ss 92 and 94. The factors those cases weigh include whether the insurance default was inadvertent or deliberate, the conduct of the parties, the value and quality of the work performed, the extent to which the owner has already paid for the work, and whether granting recovery would be just and equitable in all the circumstances.
Factors that may be relevant to the exercise of the discretion, depending on the circumstances of the case and the authorities relied upon, include:
steps actually taken to obtain insurance
whether the failure was inadvertent or deliberate
whether the contractor has already received substantial payment for the work notwithstanding the insurance breach
whether the defects are so substantial that demolition, replacement or extensive rectification is required
whether the absence of insurance has increased the owner's recovery risk
the quality of the work performed and any significant defects
whether denying recovery would result in the owner receiving the benefit of the work without paying for it
Section 94(3) provides a limited cure: uninsured work can cease to be uninsured work if the required contract of insurance is later obtained. Do not treat retrospective cover as a plan. Owner cooperation is typically required, and icare may refuse mid-job. Section 94(1A) is a recovery argument, not a compliance strategy.
Worked example — builder takes a deposit, starts, never obtains a certificate, then claims the unpaid progress claim. The starting point is $0. Quantum meruit is available only if section 94(1A) is run and won.
The Appeal Panel's decision in Syed Ahmad Shoaib Ali Pty Ltd v Jandson Pty Ltd; Jandson Pty Ltd v Syed Ahmad Shoaib Ali Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP 228 also illustrates that an uninsured builder may be unable to retain a deposit where doing so depends upon enforcing contractual forfeiture rights that ss 92 and 94 render unavailable.
SOP Act section 8(2) — the 2024 overlay
Section 8(1) of the SOP Act gives a person who has undertaken to carry out construction work a right to a progress payment. Section 8(2) then removes that right if the construction contract:
does not comply with section 4 of the HBA (licensing), or
involves construction work that is residential building work done in contravention of section 92.
That amendment has been in force since 20 August 2024. An adjudicator faced with uninsured residential work may value the claim at nil even if the section 13 claim is formally perfect. The payment-schedule and adjudication machinery is unchanged; the underlying entitlement is gone.
The procedure itself — payment schedules, timing, adjudication — is set out in our guide to the Security of Payment Act and adjudication and our guide to payment claims and schedules. The interface that matters here is simpler: uninsured residential work can take both the contractual claim and the statutory progress-payment claim off the table at once.
There is a further crossover. False or careless supporting statements on payment claims can draw Building Commission attention to a builder’s financial standing. That review can then threaten HBCF eligibility, which then threatens future certificates. A payment-claim problem can become an eligibility problem, which then becomes a pipeline problem.
Owner-side consequences, and whether missing cover can be cured
An owner who pays and lets work start without a certificate may be unable to claim if a trigger later occurs. Sale-of-land and lender issues follow. Missing cover does not strip the owner of section 18B (HBA) warranties or, where it applies, the DBP Act duty.
Can it be cured? In sequence:
Stop work and stop taking money.
Apply for cover. On SIRA’s published position, a section 97 exemption will not be granted after work has commenced.
If work has started, section 94(3) retrospective cover is the statutory cure, not a right.
If cover is refused, section 94(1A) is a recovery argument for the builder, not a protection for the owner.
“We’ll insure it later” is also a director and licence risk. It is not a commercial compromise.
Builder eligibility, open job value, deeds and the 2 March 2026 manual
Eligibility is permission to apply for cover. It is not permission to start. Open job value (OJV) is the total value of jobs a builder can have under construction at once. A builder at 95% of OJV cannot lawfully take the next residential job over $20,000 until something completes or eligibility is increased.
For builders, developers and directors, four things now govern the pipeline: construction-type limits, the 2 March 2026 Eligibility Manual, deeds of indemnity, and why eligibility is a bid/no-bid constraint rather than an admin afterthought.
Eligibility is permission to apply, not permission to start
icare assesses builders and issues Certificates of Eligibility. Home Building Compensation Fund financial eligibility for a contractor turns on financial standing, construction-type approval, and open job value: the credential confirms the types of building work they may do for HBCF purposes and how much work they can take on at one time. A Certificate of Insurance is issued separately for each project. A breach of financial eligibility is not just an insurance issue — it can feed back into licence risk.
Construction types used in the Eligibility Manual include:
H01 — new dwelling construction
H02 — work to an existing residential apartment
H03 — new residential apartment
H04 — building work to an existing dwelling
H05 — swimming pools
Developer diligence before award should include the current eligibility profile, construction-type approval, OJV headroom, and any loadings or conditions. Asking for that after the builder is selected is how a project sits idle while someone tries to lift a limit that will not lift in time.
The 2 March 2026 Eligibility Manual — what actually changed
The current HBCF Eligibility Manual took effect on 2 March 2026. As with all figures in this guide, confirm the numbers against the live icare manual (see the currency note above) before relying on them.
In outline:
Automated Scorecard Review (ASR) expanded, with a minimum score of 523. A lower score goes to manual / Special Eligibility Review (SER).
Three ASR tiers. Tier 1 maximum OJV remains $3 million. Tier 2 maximum OJV increased to $8 million. New Tier 3 maximum OJV is $12 million.
Some H01 and H04 category limits increased. Some Tier 2 H02, H03 and H05 limits were revised down, with grandfathering until the next ASR where the existing limit is higher.
First ASR under the new scoring model: an OJV reduction of 30% or more is capped at 30%. Later ASRs are not capped.
The Building Contract Review Program (BCRP) was retired on 2 March 2026, with a transition window to 2 September 2026.
Builders can manage HBCF themselves on the HBCF Portal, or appoint a service provider. icare does not endorse service providers. The builder remains responsible for the section 92 outcome regardless of who clicks the portal.
Treat OJV as a bid/no-bid constraint. A mid-tier builder who wins three jobs in a fortnight and then discovers the third certificate will not issue is not facing an insurance delay. They are facing an eligibility limit.
Deeds of indemnity, former-business deeds and Group Trading Agreements
icare generally asks for security from directors where the company itself cannot meet Assessed Net Tangible Asset (ANTA) thresholds. It will not accept deeds from persons outside the building entity (spouses or unrelated parties).
Current published settings:
Eligibility Deed of Indemnity — minimum typically $200,000 (manual exceptions exist). Expires 36 months after completion of the last building project if no claim or loss notification is received.
Project-specific Deed — 10% of the contract price, or 50% of the maximum loss available under the policy, whichever is less. Expires 78 months after completion if no claim or loss notification is received.
Deed in Respect of a Former Business — sought where a new eligibility is sought by a person who was a principal or shareholder of another licensed building company for which HBCF issued certificates.
icare’s own warning is that eligibility deeds should not be used to remedy non-financial deficiencies, working-capital or gross-margin holes, or a perceived lack of funding capacity to support growth. A deed papers over ANTA. It does not paper over a business that cannot fund the work.
Group Trading Agreements are required where related-party treasury, non-commercial internal charges, or cross-guarantees force a consolidated group assessment. The outcome is an aggregate open job limit for the group. If more than one related entity is licensed in NSW and holds eligibility, a group assessment must be conducted.
Anyone intending to provide security for a builder should examine the builder’s financial affairs and obtain legal and financial advice. That is icare’s published position. It is also the only safe position for a director signing a personal deed.
Loss of eligibility is not automatic licence cancellation. It does stop new residential work over $20,000. Claims history, Building Commission financial-standing reviews, and SOP supporting-statement issues can all feed back into eligibility. For NSW building and construction lawyers advising at contract award, eligibility is now part of the procurement file, not a post-award insurance request.
What the policy covers, what it does not, and the limits that decide the file
HBCF is last-resort cover for incomplete or defective residential building work after a trigger, within published time limits and dollar caps. It is not home insurance, professional indemnity, contract works cover, or a defects-liability substitute.
What the policy actually does comes down to six things: the four trigger events, the three insured losses, the clocks, the beneficiaries, the dollar limits, and the things it is not designed to pay.
Last resort — the four trigger events
icare’s current published claim triggers are that the builder or tradesperson has:
become insolvent (for example, bankrupt or in liquidation)
died
disappeared and cannot be contacted
had their licence suspended for failing to comply with an NCAT or court money order in the claimant’s favour
Finding defects or unfinished work, on its own, is not a trigger. If the builder is still trading and able to perform, the file is warranties, access, Building Commission and NCAT.
Working out whether you have a trigger
Answer these in order. The first "yes" tells you where you are.
Is the builder insolvent — bankrupt, in liquidation, or under external administration? If yes, a trigger exists. Prove it with ASIC or bankruptcy records and lodge. You can skip the Building Commission and NCAT.
Has the builder died? If yes, a trigger exists. A grant of probate is useful but is not always the first document.
Has the builder disappeared and cannot be contacted after genuine attempts? If yes, a trigger exists. One unanswered call is not "disappeared."
Has the builder's licence been suspended for failing to comply with an NCAT or court money order in your favour? If yes, a trigger exists — but only for the money-order species of suspension. Check the public register.
If none of the above: there is no trigger yet. You cannot claim. Notify the loss to icare now, run statutory warranties, use Building Commission NSW, and take the matter to NCAT if needed. That notification and diligent pursuit are what keep a later delayed claim under section 103BB alive.
The sequencing trap: if the only available trigger is licence suspension on a money order, you cannot skip the Commission and NCAT — the order has to exist first.
A work order that is ignored is a different problem until it is converted into a money order and then into a licence suspension. Treating an ignored work order as an HBCF trigger is a sequencing error.
The three insured losses, the clocks, and the six-month tail
Once a trigger has happened, cover may respond to:
work that did not start, or was not completed — including loss of deposit and the cost to complete, within limits
major defects — up to 6 years from completion
other defects — up to 2 years from completion
Non-completion / never-started cover is a 12-month period from failure to commence or from when work ceased. If a defect is found in the last 6 months of the relevant cover period, icare’s published position is that there may be another 6 months to notify. That tail is a notification extension. It is not extra cover.
Insured loss | Period | Runs from |
Non-completion / never started | 12 months | Failure to commence, or work ceased |
Major defect | 6 years | Completion |
Other defect | 2 years | Completion |
Notification tail | Extra 6 months to notify | Loss became apparent in the last 6 months of the period |
Completion for these purposes uses the HBA completion rules — section 3B for ordinary work, section 3C for new buildings in a strata scheme (occupation certificate). That is the same completion engine as the statutory-warranty clocks, which is why the two regimes get confused. They share a starting gun. They do not share a trigger, a cap, or a respondent.
Major defect for insurance purposes should be tied back to the HBA definition used for section 18E. Do not invent a looser icare meaning.
Beneficiaries, hard limits, and what is never covered
The policy is for the owner on whose behalf the work is done, and for successors in title. Cover stays with the property. Non-contracting co-owners can take the benefit even if unnamed. Previous claims reduce the remaining limit.
The Home Building Regulation prescribes a minimum of $340,000 per dwelling. icare’s published claim limits follow that minimum for current policies:
$300,000 — policies issued before 1 February 2012 only
$340,000 — policies issued on or after 1 February 2012
That is the total amount available for the property, including claims by previous owners. The Regulation also permits the contract of insurance to limit liability for non-completion to an amount that is not less than 20% of the contract price. That 20% figure is a floor for the sub-limit, and it is the number that shocks principals mid-job.
Worked example — a $1.8 million house, builder insolvent at 60% complete. Incomplete-work cover is confined by the 20% sub-limit (here, $360,000) and then by the $340,000 dwelling cap. Widespread structural defects in a high-value dwelling will exceed the policy. That is why warranties, the Design and Building Practitioners Act, and (on Class 2) the strata bond do the heavy lifting. “We have HBCF” is not “we are whole”.
HBCF does not cover:
wear and tear, maintenance, or change of mind
disputes while the builder is still able to perform
work done by unlicensed builders
delay, liquidated damages, or pure commercial loss
costs outside the time limits
costs above the maximum cover
legal costs of running a formal claim, on icare’s current published position (investigation costs may be considered in some cases before a formal claim is lodged; once a formal claim is lodged, icare says it cannot pay for legal costs)
HBCF is also not professional indemnity, contract works / construction all risks, public liability, or decennial cover. Those are separate placements with separate notification duties. Do not assume a defects claim on a still-trading builder is an HBCF matter, and do not assume an HBCF claim is a PI matter.
Running a claim — triggers, loss notifications, delayed claims and assessment
A claim is available after a trigger. A loss notification is available before one. Mixing those two steps is how an owner waits for insolvency, misses the notification window, and then discovers the delayed-claim machinery in section 103BB cannot save a file that was never notified.
This section is the practical sequence: notify early, confirm the trigger, lodge with the documents you have, and understand how assessment, tenders and subrogation actually run.
Loss notification is not a claim, and it is the step that saves delayed claims
If something has gone wrong and no trigger has happened yet, notify icare anyway. icare’s current channels are the HBCF online portal, the Loss Notification Form by email, or post. Notification is a record that there is an issue while the owner is still dealing with the builder, the Commission, or NCAT.
Section 103BB is the statutory delayed-claim machinery for policies issued from 1 July 2002, with Wesfarmers General Insurance Pty Ltd t/as Lumley Insurance v James Arthur Fordham [2015] NSWCATAP 103 a leading NSW NCAT Appeal Panel authority on notification and time-limit requirements under post-1 July 2002 Home Building Compensation policies. In outline, for post-1 July 2002 policies, compliance with applicable notification and time-limit requirements is critical. A delayed claim may still be considered where the loss became apparent during the relevant period, the insurer was notified within the required time, the trigger occurred later, and the claimant diligently pursued available remedies.
Diligent pursuit, in the Regulation’s terms, is the practical counterpart of section 18BA on the warranty side: written notice to the builder, access for rectification, a Commission complaint, and NCAT or court proceedings where needed. Sitting on a defect and “waiting for HBCF” is the opposite of diligent pursuit.
The six-month tail for late-discovered defects is a notification extension. icare’s published claim-readiness page also states that non-completion / never-started losses must be notified within 12 months. Do not assume the tail applies to every species of loss.
Confirm the trigger, then lodge
Proof of trigger depends on the species:
Insolvency — ASIC / bankruptcy evidence, external administrator appointed
Disappearance — actual attempts to contact, not one unanswered call
Licence suspension — must be the money-order species; check the public register
Death — grant of probate is useful, not always the first document
You do not always need a fresh expert report before lodging. icare may commission its own inspection. Do not delay a tight clock to wait for a perfect Scott Schedule.
Documents that typically matter: contract, variations, payments, certificate, photos, existing defect reports, NCAT or court orders, insolvency records, and access correspondence.
Once lodged, icare checks eligibility, may request more information, may inspect, and issues a written decision. Completion or rectification is often tendered. The payout is actual financial loss, net of amounts already paid, capped. icare then subrogates against the builder and, where a deed is in place, potentially against indemnifying directors. Time to decision varies; treat any “around 90 days” figure as operational colour, not a statutory deadline.
Partial acceptance is common. The fight is usually about major versus other defect (which decides the clock), betterment, maintenance, and the 20% incomplete-work sub-limit. Owners who expected the policy to fund a complete rebuild of a high-value dwelling are reading a different product.
Forums — Building Commission, NCAT, icare and the court, on the same job
HBCF does not stay the Commission, NCAT, or a duty-of-care claim, and those processes do not stay an HBCF claim. The usual failure is running one track as if it were the only track, or waiting for one clock while another expires.
This section maps the insurance interfaces only. Procedure, evidence, section 48MA and costs sit in our guide to NCAT and Building Commission NSW. Forum choice more broadly sits in our guide to resolving a construction dispute in NSW.
Four tracks that do not stay each other
Track | Who starts it | What it can do | What it cannot do | Clock |
Building Commission complaint | Owner / OC | Investigation, dispute assistance, rectification orders | Pay compensation; substitute for HBCF | Administrative, not a limitation period |
NCAT building claim against the builder | Owner / OC / builder | Work order, money order, building claim up to $500,000 | Bind icare; extend section 18E by existing | Section 18E; Part 3A |
HBCF claim against icare | Beneficiary | Compensation after a trigger, within policy limits | Fix a still-trading builder; exceed the cap | 12 months / 2 years / 6 years / s 103BB |
DBP or warranty claim in court | Owner / OC / successor | Duty of care / warranties against a wider defendant class | Create HBCF cover that was never issued | Limitation Act; EPA Act 10-year long-stop |
You can skip Commission and NCAT where a trigger already exists (insolvency, death, disappearance). You cannot skip them where the intended trigger is licence suspension for non-compliance with a money order. That trigger requires the order first. That is the sequencing trap.
A declined or underpaid HBCF claim can itself be a "building claim" under section 48A of the HBA, which includes claims on insurance, and is the kind of dispute our NCAT lawyers run. NCAT’s $500,000 monetary limit still applies. The section 48J investigation gateway is the usual NCAT filing issue; insurance appeals are often in the category the Tribunal will take without a fresh Commission investigation, but confirm against current NCAT filing guidance rather than treating that as an exemption written into section 48J itself.
Do not let a Commission complaint burn the section 18E or section 103BB clock. A complaint is not a proceeding. If a warranty or insurance period is inside 12 months, lodge in parallel.
HBCF across the NSW construction supply chain
The same statute produces different operational problems depending on where you sit in the chain. A head contractor’s eligibility limit, a trade’s two small invoices, a developer’s multi-storey exemption, and a director’s deed are all HBCF problems. They are not the same HBCF problem.
Where you sit in the chain decides your problem: builders, trades, subcontractors, developers, owners corporations, purchasers, indemnifiers and service providers each face a different one.
Licensed builders, specialist trades and subcontractors
For licensed residential builders and nominated supervisors, section 92 is a start-work gate, eligibility is a pipeline gate, section 94 is a recovery gate, and claims history is a future-premium and OJV gate. Treat all four as live constraints, not as back-office insurance.
Specialist trades contracting direct to owners are inside the same $20,000 rule. Multiple small contracts with the same owner are aggregated under section 92(4). A bathroom, a waterproofing package and a joinery package issued a fortnight apart can be one insurance event.
If you are a specialist trade contracting direct to an owner, read this. The rule is simpler than it looks, and the trap is real. If you contract directly with a homeowner to do residential building work — a kitchen, bathroom, re-roof, pool, or structural waterproofing — and the price is over $20,000 including GST, you need HBCF cover in your own name before you take a deposit or start. Splitting one job into two invoices under $20,000 does not help you: the same parties staging the work are added together. If you skip cover, you cannot enforce payment for the work, a progress claim can be valued at nil, and you may have to hand back a deposit you already spent. Our NSW security of payment lawyers can advise where an uninsured job has put a payment claim at risk. Before you quote work near the threshold, confirm your eligibility and get the certificate issued in the exact name you are contracting under.
If you are a subcontractor, HBCF is usually not your instrument — here is what is. Where you contract with a head contractor rather than with the owner, you ordinarily do not take out HBCF on the subcontract, and you are not a beneficiary of the head-contract policy. If the head contractor is uninsured, the owner may have no HBCF, and you may be chasing a head contractor who also cannot get paid under section 94 and SOP Act section 8(2). That is a downstream insolvency cascade, not a policy wording issue. Your recovery paths sit elsewhere: a progress claim and adjudication under the Security of Payment Act; direct recovery of a subcontractor debt from the principal under the Contractors Debts Act 1997 (NSW); and proving as a creditor in the head contractor's administration or liquidation. HBCF will not respond to you. Do not wait on an icare claim that was never yours to make while those other clocks run.
Developers, spec-builders, owners corporations and purchasers
Developers and spec-builders need to price the right stack. On an exempt multi-storey job, the saving is the HBCF premium. The remaining stack is warranties, DBP Act compliance and section 37, RAB Act exposure, and the strata building bond (2% of the contract price for bonds given before 1 July 2028; 3% on or after that date, per cl 54 of the Strata Schemes Management Regulation 2016). On a spec-build that is inside the scheme, cover is required before commencement, the certificate attaches to the sale, and the developer-builder cannot claim on itself.
Owners corporations, lot owners and strata managers need to know who the beneficiary is, what was insured (lot versus common property), and how much of the limit is left. Common-property defects are usually an OC file. Parallel paths — section 18D successors, DBP Act sections 37 and 38, Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) (the SSMA) section 106 maintenance — are not HBCF issues, but they are the usual misattribution.
Purchasers, conveyancers and lenders should search the register, insist on the certificate in the sale pack, and read owner-builder warnings as statutory warnings, not as boilerplate. “No certificate on a 2011 renovation” is a different problem from “no certificate on a 2024 knock-down rebuild”.
Directors, indemnifiers, insolvency practitioners and service providers
A director's deed of indemnity is a personal guarantee in construction in all but name: a director who signs a $200,000 eligibility deed has given icare a path that survives the company's liquidation. Last-resort for the owner is not last-resort for the indemnifier.
For insolvency practitioners: the owner’s HBCF claim is a claim against icare, not a proof of debt in the builder’s administration. icare’s subrogation then competes in the administration. Ipso facto and stay issues are problems for the building contract, not for the policy.
Brokers and service providers can now be appointed through the HBCF Portal. Appointment does not shift section 92 liability. Fees, scope and authority to bind the builder should be in writing. icare does not endorse the service provider. The certificate either issues in the right name, or it does not.
How HBCF sits with the rest of the residential stack
HBCF is one layer. Files fail when it is treated as the only layer, or as a layer that deletes the others. Each interface below is the one rule that causes that failure. The underlying regimes are covered in full in our related guides.
Warranties, SOP, Design and Building Practitioners Act, RAB Act, the bond, and insolvency
Statutory warranties (Part 2C) are the claim you run while the builder still exists. Two years for non-major defects, six years for major defects, from completion under section 18E of the HBA. Section 18BA notice and access, and section 48MA’s rectification preference, are warranty machinery. HBCF does not respond until a trigger. Running only an insurance strategy against a solvent builder is a wasted year.
SOP Act section 8(2) is the payment interface already covered. Uninsured residential work has no statutory progress-payment right. That is a builder-side HBCF consequence, not an owner-side cover question.
DBP Act section 37 is the pathway that survives when HBCF is exempt or exhausted, provided the statutory duty claim is properly pleaded and particularised: multi-storey exemption jobs, claims above $340,000, and defendants who were never the licensed builder. In Pafburn Pty Ltd v The Owners — Strata Plan No 84674 [2024] HCA 49, a 4:3 majority of the High Court held that a developer or head contractor sued on that non-delegable duty cannot reduce liability for the breach by relying on proportionate liability under Part 4 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (the CLA). In The Owners — Strata Plan No 87060 v Loulach Developments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1068, proceedings were brought against both the developer, Loulach Developments Pty Ltd, and the builder, Loulach Steel Pty Ltd. The decision confirms that a section 37 claim must identify the relevant risks and the precautions said to have been required; proof of defects alone does not establish breach. Those cases belong in our guide to building defects. In Loulach, leave to amend was refused in the form proposed because the pleading did not sufficiently identify the relevant risks and precautions, although the owners corporation was given a further opportunity to re-plead. They are the reason "no HBCF" is not "no claim".
RAB Act orders (prohibition, stop work, building work rectification) run against the developer, not necessarily the insured builder, on a different clock, with a 30-day Land and Environment Court appeal and no stay. A Commission or RAB order is not an HBCF determination.
Strata building bond (SSMA Part 11) is a cash or guarantee arrangement on Class 2 residential apartment buildings of four or more storeys, fixed by the Strata Schemes Management Regulation 2016 (cl 54) at 2% of the contract price for bonds given before 1 July 2028 and 3% for bonds given on or after that date, with an inspection cycle. It applies where HBCF does not: the two schemes are mutually exclusive.
Builder insolvency mid-project is the moment the HBCF trigger crystallises. Incomplete-work 20% sub-limit versus cost to complete is the arithmetic. The principal still has to engage a completion contractor, and that completion contractor needs its own section 92 certificate. Security calls remain a separate, and often poorly timed, decision — and, as our defects guide explains, drawing on security reflexively can create its own problems.
Other insurances. Professional indemnity, contract works and public liability have their own insurance notification obligations and consent-to-settle clauses. A warranty negotiation that is also a potential HBCF notification, or a PI circumstance, needs a coordinated notice. Late notification of a construction insurance claim is a coverage issue on those policies — an insurance exclusion or a declined claim can follow. On HBCF it is instead a delayed-claim issue under section 103BB. Do not assume one notice covers all of them.
Key cases at a glance
Application turns on the policy wording, the certificate, and the facts of the trigger. These authorities are the usual starting points, not a substitute for the current Act and Regulation.
Eddy Lau Constructions Pty Ltd v Transdevelopment Enterprise Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 273 — leading discussion of the section 94(1A) just-and-equitable discretion in claims for quantum meruit on uninsured work.
Syed Ahmad Shoaib Ali Pty Ltd v Jandson Pty Ltd; Jandson Pty Ltd v Syed Ahmad Shoaib Ali Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP 228 — an uninsured builder was not entitled to retain a deposit where retention depended upon enforcing contractual forfeiture rights rendered unavailable by ss 92 and 94.
Hanna v Kersten; Kersten v Hanna [2019] NSWCATCD 26 — first-instance NCAT decision applying the section 94(1A) discretion and the approach in Eddy Lau, including consideration of whether the insurance breach arose from ignorance or misunderstanding rather than deliberate contravention, and refusing quantum meruit where the builder had largely been paid, the work was extensively defective and the owner faced increased recovery risk.
Wesfarmers General Insurance Pty Ltd t/as Lumley Insurance v James Arthur Fordham [2015] NSWCATAP 103 — a leading NSW NCAT Appeal Panel authority concerning notification requirements, policy time limits and delayed-claim issues under post-1 July 2002 Home Building Compensation policies.
De More Constructions Pty Ltd v Garpace Pty Ltd (t/as Broad View Aluminium) [2001] NSWCA 350; (2001) 53 NSWLR 132 — authority that the Home Building Act distinguishes between employees and subcontractors, and that unlicensed subcontractors undertaking residential building work may be unable to enforce their subcontracts by reason of ss 4 and 10(3).
Pafburn Pty Ltd v The Owners — Strata Plan No 84674 [2024] HCA 49 and The Owners — Strata Plan No 87060 v Loulach Developments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1068 — authorities concerning the section 37 DBP Act duty of care. Pafburn confirms that proportionate liability under Part 4 of the CLA is unavailable in relation to that duty. Loulach confirms that a section 37 claim must be properly pleaded by identifying the relevant risks and the precautions said to have been required; proof of defects alone does not establish breach. They are relevant where HBCF is exempt, unavailable or exhausted. These are covered in full in our defects and duty of care guide.
Conclusion
HBCF is a last-resort statutory insurance overlay on New South Wales residential building work. It is compulsory above $20,000 unless an exemption applies, it is narrow when a claim is actually available, and it is unforgiving when cover is missing.
Classify the job first. If cover is required, do not start and do not take money until a complying certificate is in the right name and on the register. If an exemption applies, price the residual stack — warranties, DBP Act, RAB Act, bond — rather than treating the exemption as a saving. If a trigger has not occurred, notify the loss and run the builder-side processes. If a trigger has occurred, claim within the clocks and within the cap.
The scheme does not make anyone whole on a high-value incomplete dwelling, does not pay while the builder can still perform, and does not replace the rest of the residential liability stack. Used in that sequence, it is a residual safety net. Used as a substitute for contracting discipline, it is a file that fails twice — once at commencement, and again at claim.
Four moments on an HBCF file are effectively irreversible: paying or taking a deposit, commencing work, signing a director's deed, and letting a notification window close. Merlo Law acts for builders, developers, trades, owners corporations, purchasers and directors at exactly those moments — checking whether cover is required or an exemption genuinely applies before commencement, framing or defending a section 94 recovery on uninsured work, running or challenging an HBCF claim or decline in NCAT, and advising directors before they sign an eligibility or project deed. If you are approaching any of those four steps, speak to us before you take it, not after. The step is cheap to get right in advance and expensive to unwind later.
FAQs
Does my builder need HBCF for this job?
If the work is residential building work under the HBA and the contract price exceeds $20,000 GST-inclusive, cover is required unless a specific exemption applies. Commercial work, small jobs under the threshold, and the listed Regulation exemptions (including qualifying multi-storey buildings) sit outside. Classify the work before you argue about the certificate.
What is the difference between a Certificate of Eligibility and a Certificate of Insurance?
Eligibility means the builder may apply for HBCF cover, subject to open job value and construction-type limits. A Certificate of Insurance is issued for a specific project and is the document that satisfies section 92. One is a builder credential. The other is the project policy.
Can work start if the certificate is “on the way”?
Section 92 prohibits doing the work, and prohibits demanding or receiving any payment, unless the complying policy is already in force in the right name and the approved certificate has been provided. A broker email is not a certificate.
What if the job is under $20,000?
Section 92 does not apply if the contract price does not exceed the prescribed amount, currently published as $20,000 including GST. Two or more contracts between the same parties for staged work are added together. Warranties still apply.
Are apartments HBCF-insured?
Not automatically. New buildings with a rise in storeys of more than three that contain 2 or more separate dwellings are exempt. Lower-rise residential work is generally inside the scheme. Class 2 is not the test. The NCC storey count and the “2 or more separate dwellings” limb are the test.
Does a subcontractor need HBCF?
Ordinarily no, where they are contracting with a head contractor rather than with the owner. A trade contracting direct to the owner above the threshold does need cover. Aggregation under section 92(4) still applies.
I am a developer building spec homes — do I need cover before I have a buyer?
Yes, if the work is residential building work over the threshold and no exemption applies. Cover is required before commencement. It travels to the eventual purchaser. You cannot claim on your own policy while you still own the stock.
The builder is still trading but will not fix defects. Can I claim on HBCF?
Not yet. Defects without a trigger are not an HBCF claim. Notify the loss, run warranties, use Building Commission NSW and, if needed, NCAT. If a trigger later occurs, the notification and the diligent pursuit are what keep delayed-claim rights alive.
The builder has gone into liquidation. What do I do in the first 48 hours?
Confirm the certificate on Verify NSW, notify icare if you have not already, gather the contract, payments and evidence of insolvency, and do not assume the policy will fund the whole cost to complete. Engage with the incomplete-work cap and the need for a new certified completion builder. Subcontractors are not HBCF claimants on the head-contract policy.
What is the maximum HBCF will pay?
The Home Building Regulation prescribes a minimum of $340,000 per dwelling. icare publishes that figure for policies issued on or after 1 February 2012; $300,000 applies only to policies issued before that date. Both figures include claims by previous owners. Non-completion cover may also be limited to not less than 20% of the contract price.
Can a builder get paid if they never took out cover?
Section 94 restricts recovery, including quantum meruit, unless a court or tribunal finds it just and equitable. SOP Act section 8(2) also removes the statutory progress-payment right for residential building work done in contravention of section 92. Retrospective insurance under section 94(3) can cure the status of the work if it is actually obtained.
How do delayed claims work if the builder becomes insolvent after the warranty period?
Section 103BB can, in some circumstances, permit consideration of a claim after the ordinary insurance period where the loss became apparent during the relevant period, the insurer was notified within the applicable timeframe, and the claimant diligently pursued available remedies against the builder.
Who claims — the original owner, the purchaser, or the owners corporation?
Cover stays with the property. Successors in title can claim, subject to remaining limits. Common-property defects are usually an owners-corporation file. Standing follows what was insured and who suffered the loss.
Do I need HBCF if I am an owner-builder?
There is no HBCF product for the owner-builder’s own work. Contractors you engage to do residential building work above the threshold still need their own cover. Sale of owner-builder work has its own disclosure warning under section 95.
Can NCAT review icare’s decision?
A dispute about an HBCF claim can be a building claim under Part 3A of the HBA. NCAT’s $500,000 limit and the section 48J gateway still apply. Confirm current filing requirements before assuming an insurance appeal can skip investigation evidence.
Does the 2026 Building Act change HBCF?
Not yet in a way you can contract on. The Building (Approvals and Practitioners) Act 2026 has received Royal Assent. Commencement is by proclamation. Confirm the status of the Home Building Act insurance provisions before treating the scheme as repealed or replaced.
How do the March 2026 eligibility changes affect a builder I want to engage?
Ask for current eligibility, construction-type approval, OJV headroom and any deed conditions. Tier 2 OJV now goes to $8 million and Tier 3 to $12 million, but a builder can still be at the limit. Eligibility is a procurement question, not a post-award insurance request.
This guide is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice tailored to your specific circumstances, contact Merlo Law.
Comments