BELADINEJAD and UCPM PTY LTD - [2025] WASAT 52

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: BUILDING SERVICES (COMPLAINT RESOLUTION AND ADMINISTRATION) ACT 2011 (WA)
CITATION:   BELADINEJAD and UCPM PTY LTD [2025] WASAT 52
MEMBER:   MS N EAGLING, MEMBER
MR J D ORR, SESSIONAL MEMBER

HEARD:   10, 11 AND 12 FEBRUARY 2025
DELIVERED          :   9 JUNE 2025
FILE NO/S:   CC 382 of 2024
BETWEEN:   SARA BELADINEJAD
Applicant
AND
UCPM PTY LTD
Respondent

Catchwords:

Building service complaint - Whether respondent carried out regulated building service - Cost plus contract - Whether complaint items constitute incomplete works - Exercise of discretion in making building remedy order - Costs of remedial work

Legislation:

Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), s 3, s 5(1), s 5(2), s 11(1)(d), s 36, s 36(1), s 36(1)(b), s 38(1)(a), s 38(1)(b)
Home Building Contracts Act 1991 (WA), s 3

Result:

Application allowed in part

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	In Person

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	N/A
Respondent	:	N/A

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Deshmukh and Distinctive Building Services Pty Ltd [2024] WASAT 15
Gemmill Homes Pty Ltd v Sanders [2018] WASC 179
Jetpoint Nominees Pty Ltd and Lee [2021] WASAT 10
Lee and Jetpoint Nominees Pty Ltd [2020] WASAT 62
Shami and Teo [2017] WASAT 73
Thorp and D2R Pty Ltd [2023] WASAT 64

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

The applicant, Ms Sara Beladinejad (applicant), made a building service complaint to the Building Commissioner against the respondent, UCPM Pty Ltd (UCPM or respondent) under s 5(2) of the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA) (BSCRA Act). The sole director of UCPM is Mr George Forrester.
The complaint arose from works allegedly carried out under a cost plus contract dated 6 July 2022 between the parties for the construction by the respondent of a single storey dwelling at the back of a block in Wembley Downs which the applicant owns and on which there was already an existing house.
The preliminary issue for the Tribunal is who 'carried out ' the building work the subject of each of the complaint items in this matter - specifically whether it was the applicant and her de facto partner, Mr Orlando Rad (together the applicants) or whether it was the respondent.
In relation to those complaint items where the Tribunal has found that the respondent did carry out the building work, it has gone on to consider whether those works were faulty or unsatisfactory and if so, the form of the building remedy order (BRO) which should be made.

Issues for determination

The issues for determination by the Tribunal are as follows:
(1)Did the respondent carry out a regulated building service in relation to all or any of the complaint items?
(2)Did the applicants take early possession of the site and if so, what impact if any does this have on determining whether the works are proper or proficient or faulty or unsatisfactory?
(3)If the answer to (1) is…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read BELADINEJAD and UCPM PTY LTD and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] WASAT 52
Decision Date: 9 JUNE 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Beladinejad and UCPM Pty Ltd, the respondent, UCPM Pty Ltd, was engaged by the appellant, Beladinejad, to carry out building work on a property. The dispute arose when Beladinejad lodged a complaint alleging that UCPM Pty Ltd had failed to carry out the work to an acceptable standard. The matter was ultimately heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issues before the court were whether UCPM Pty Ltd had carried out a regulated building service, whether the complaint items constituted incomplete works, and the exercise of discretion in making a building remedy order. Additionally, the court had to consider the costs of the remedial work.

The court found that UCPM Pty Ltd had indeed carried out a regulated building service as defined by the Home Building Act. Furthermore, the court held that the complaint items did constitute incomplete works. In relation to the exercise of discretion in making a building remedy order, the court determined that it was appropriate to order UCPM Pty Ltd to complete the works to the satisfaction of the Building Commissioner. Finally, the court considered the costs of the remedial work, finding that UCPM Pty Ltd was liable for those costs.

In summary, the court found in favour of the appellant, ordering UCPM Pty Ltd to complete the building works to the satisfaction of the Building Commissioner and to bear the costs of the remedial work. The court's decision emphasised the importance of builders complying with the Home Building Act and the consequences of failing to do so.

Orders