BLACKWELL and BOOY - [2025] WASAT 94

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: BUILDING SERVICES (COMPLAINT RESOLUTION AND ADMINISTRATION) ACT 2011 (WA)
CITATION:   BLACKWELL and BOOY [2025] WASAT 94
MEMBER:   MR E CADE, MEMBER
MR R WOODFORDE, SESSIONAL MEMBER

HEARD:   7, 8 AND 9 APRIL 2025
DELIVERED          :   11 SEPTEMBER 2025
FILE NO/S:   CC 8 of 2024
BETWEEN:   MATTHEW BLACKWELL
Applicant
AND
OWEN BOOY
Respondent

FILE NO/S: CC 9 of 2024
BETWEEN: OWEN BOOY
Applicant
AND
MATTHEW BLACKWELL
Respondent

FILE NO/S: CC 10 of 2024
BETWEEN: OWEN BOOY
Applicant
AND
MATTHEW BLACKWELL
Respondent

FILE NO/S: CC 124 of 2024
BETWEEN: OWEN BOOY
Applicant
AND
MATTHEW BLACKWELL
Respondent

FILE NO/S: CC 446 of 2024
BETWEEN: MATTHEW BLACKWELL
Applicant
AND
OWEN BOOY
Respondent

Catchwords:

Building dispute - Defects in construction - Home building contract work - Breach of contract - Respondent's conduct - Costs of remedial work - Exercise of Tribunal discretion in making a building remedy order - Whether order to remedy or order to pay - Applicant's costs of proceeding

Legislation:

Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), s 11(1)(d), s 36(1)(a), s 36(1)(b), s 38, s 41(2)(d)(i), s 43(1), s 43(1)(a), s 51, s 51(2)(a)
Home Building Contracts Act 1991 (WA), Pt 2

Result:

Applicant in CC 8 of 2024 is dismissed
Applicant in CC 9 of 2024 is partly successful
Applicant in CC 10 of 2024 is unsuccessful
Applicant in CC 124 of 2024 is unsuccessful
Applicant in CC 446 of 2024 is unsuccessful

Category: B

Representation:

CC 8 of 2024

Counsel:

Applicant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	In Person

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	N/A
Respondent	:	N/A

CC 9 of 2024

Counsel:

Applicant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	In Person

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	N/A
Respondent	:	N/A

CC 10 of 2024

Counsel:

Applicant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	In Person

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	N/A
Respondent	:	N/A

CC 124 of 2024

Counsel:

Applicant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	In Person

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	N/A
Respondent	:	N/A

CC 446 of 2024

Counsel:

Applicant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	In Person

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	N/A
Respondent	:	N/A

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

Brooks and Gransden Building Company Pty Ltd [No 2] [2021] WASAT 86
Deshmukh and Distinctive Building Services Pty Ltd [2024] WASAT 15
Electricity Generation and Retail Corporation t/as Synergy v EIT Kwinana Partner Pty Ltd [2022] WASCA 3
Gemmill Homes Pty Ltd v Sanders [2018] WASC 179
Owners of Island Apartments Strata Plan 52597 and Pindan Pty Ltd [2018] WASAT 2

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

Proceedings CC 8 of 2024, CC 9 of 2024, CC 10 of 2024, CC 124 of 2024 and CC 446 of 2024 relate to building works (decking works and renovation works) performed by Matthew Blackwell at a home owned by Owen Booy at 7 Emilia Street, Coolbellup, (the home) between July and October 2022.
CC 8 of 2024 is a HBWC complaint made by Mr Blackwell that Mr Booy failed to pay in full or in part a number of…

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.

Continue reading BLACKWELL and BOOY

Details

AGLC: BLACKWELL and BOOY [2025] WASAT 94
Case: [2025] WASAT 94
Decision Date: 11 SEPTEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Blackwell and Booy involved a dispute over defects in construction work related to a home building contract. The respondent, Mr Blackwell, was a builder, and the applicant, Mr Booy, was the homeowner. The primary issue before the court was whether Mr Blackwell was obligated to lay the jarrah decking boards supplied by Mr Booy under their amended contract. The court also needed to determine whether the order should be for remedying the defects or for payment, and if Mr Booy was entitled to his costs of proceeding.

The court approached the interpretation of the amended contract by primarily considering the written quote dated 24 May 2022. While the parol evidence rule does not strictly apply, the court considered the text, context, and purpose of the quote. The court found that the description 'Jarrah Decking Job As Discussed' was merely a general description of the proposed works and did not imply that Mr Blackwell would lay the decking boards. The relevant sub-headings in the quote, such as 'Labour', helped in determining the proper construction of the contract. The court concluded that the reference to '125mm x 19mm Jarrah Decking Boards' under the 'Labour' sub-heading meant that a labour cost was applied to the decking boards, thus making Mr Blackwell responsible for laying the boards supplied by Mr Booy.

The court found in favour of Mr Booy, ordering that Mr Blackwell must remedy the defects by laying the jarrah decking boards supplied by Mr Booy. Additionally, the court granted Mr Booy his costs of proceeding, recognising the respondent's conduct in the matter. This decision underscores the importance of clear communication and detailed documentation in construction contracts to avoid such disputes.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

We consider that although we are not bound by the rules of evidence, such as the Parol evidence rule, we do consider that the proper construction of the amended contract is to be found by primarily considering the written quote dated 24 May 2022 by reference to its text, context and purpose: Electricity Generation and Retail Corporation t/as Synergy v EIT Kwinana Partner Pty Ltd.[5][5] Electricity Generation and Retail Corporation t/as Synergy v EIT Kwinana Partner Pty Ltd [2022] WASCA 3 [230]. The following two details in the quote require careful consideration:•the description 'Jarrah Decking Job As Discussed'; and•the details within the sub-headings in the body of the quote. We note that while Mr Blackwell and Mr Booy did discuss the proposed works before Mr Blackwell gave Mr Booy the quote dated 24 May 2022, it is clear to us from the evidence of the parties that this discussion went only so far as to confirm that the quote was provided on the basis that Mr Booy was himself to source, pay for and supply the jarrah decking boards but did not extend to any express discussion as to who was responsible to lay those boards. Therefore, the parties' precontractual discussions, even if we were to consider them, would not assist us to properly construct the amended contract. While it is unfortunate that Mr Blackwell described the proposed works as a 'Jarrah Decking Job' we do not consider this description means that Mr Blackwell was offering to lay the decking boards that were to be supplied by Mr Booy. We consider this description to be no more than a general and convenient description of the proposed works. Therefore, this description does not assist us to properly construct the contract. We do, however, consider the details of the work that Mr Blackwell was offering to do under the sub-headings in the body of the quote do assist us to find the proper construction of this contract. These subheadings are 'Labour', Footing Materials', 'H4 base frame' and 'Fixings'. The sub-headings 'Footing Materials' and 'H4 base frame' clearly only relate to the frame and are therefore not relevant to the question as to who is to lay the decking boards under the amended contract. The sub-heading 'Labour' is, however, a relevant sub-heading. This is because, given that the fixings are provided under the contract, the cost of laying the decking boards is then entirely a labour cost. Mr Booy says that the reference in this sub-heading to '125mm x 19mm Jarrah Decking Boards' must mean that a labour cost is applied to the decking boards, with the result that this is an offer to lay the decking boards. Mr Blackwell in turn says that the reference in the sub-heading to the decking boards was intended only to inform Mr Booy of the dimensions of the boards he was to supply. After considering the evidence and the submissions of both parties we are persuaded the reference in the sub-heading 'Labour' to the decking boards does mean a labour cost is applied to the decking boards, with the result that we are satisfied and find that under the amended contract Mr Blackwell is required to lay the decking boards supplied by Mr Booy.