JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL
CITATION: BRAHAM -v- EVANS [2008] WASC 274
CORAM: BEECH J
HEARD: 11 NOVEMBER 2008
DELIVERED : 28 NOVEMBER 2008
FILE NO/S: GDA 2 of 2007
BETWEEN: MARK ANTHONY BRAHAM
Applicant
AND
WAYNE MURRAY EVANS
MICHELLE ANNE GRACE
Respondents
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram :MR T CAREY (MEMBER)
Citation :BRAHAM and EVANS & ANOR [2007] WASAT 124
File No :CC 1636 of 2006
Catchwords:
Building and construction - Appeal against decision of State Administrative Tribunal refusing leave to review decision of Building Disputes Tribunal - Whether complaint excluded by limitation provision - Whether building 'fit for occupation in a free and uninterrupted manner' - Whether power of Building Disputes Tribunal excluded by failure to give preliminary notice - Whether State Administrative Tribunal made error of law - Whether requirements of procedural fairness met - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Builders Registration Act 1939 (WA) s 12A, s 41
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 105(2)
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant: Mr J R B Ley
Respondents : Mr P J Marsh
Solicitors:
Applicant: Elliott & Co
Respondents : Waterside Legal
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
Barratt v Howard [2000] FCA 190; (2000) 96 FCR 428
Bruce v Cole (1998) 45 NSWLR 163
Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 576
Content Living Pty Ltd v McIntosh & Anor [2005] WADC 173
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87
Giustginiano Nominees Pty Ltd v Redan Pty Ltd [1999] WASC 95
Lillywhite v Chief Executive, Liquor Licensing Division, Department of Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development [2008] QCA 88
Mijatovic v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee [2008] WASCA 115
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Epeabaka [1999] FCA 1; (1999) 84 FCR 411
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Rajamanikkam [2002] HCA 32; (2002) 210 CLR 222
National Companies and Securities Commission v The News Corporation Ltd (1984) 156 CLR 296
Network Ten Pty Ltd v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 14; (2004) 218 CLR 273
Nominal Defendant v GLG Australia Pty Ltd [2006] HCA 11; (2006) 228 CLR 529
Paridis v Settlement Agents Supervisory Board [2007] WASCA 97; (2007) 33 WAR 361
Powley v Crimes Compensation Tribunal (1996) 11 VAR 146
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, ex parte Applicant S20/2002 [2003] HCA 30; (2003) 77 ALJR 1165
BEECH J:
Introduction
Mr and Mrs Braham owned the property at 12 O'Byrne Crescent, Kalgoorlie (the Property). On 23 January 1995 they were granted a building permit to construct a timber framed weatherboard residence, as depicted on specific plans, on the Property. At that stage, the Property was a vacant block.
Subsequently, a…
Continue reading Braham v Evans
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Braham v Evans [2008] WASC 274
- Case
- [2008] WASC 274
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined whether the SAT had correctly identified that the starting point in determining the content of procedural fairness was the statutory context. The court noted that the statutory framework and the specific circumstances of each case would determine the requirements of procedural fairness. The court also found that an order calculated by reference to the costs of demolition and rebuilding was not a radical departure from what is contemplated by the terms of the Act, as remedying defects in building work may involve repair or, in some cases, replacement of certain parts. The court concluded that what is reasonable would depend on the circumstances.
The court found that the SAT had correctly applied the statutory framework and had not made an error of law. The court also found that the requirements of procedural fairness had been met, as the SAT had considered all relevant facts and circumstances in the context of the statutory framework. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
ORDERS:
The appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
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
The Tribunal correctly identified that the starting point in determining the content of procedural fairness was the statutory context. See in this regard National Companies and Securities Commission v The News Corporation Ltd (1984) 156 CLR 296, 326; Barratt v Howard [2000] FCA 190; (2000) 96 FCR 428 [54] ‑ [55]. That requires attention to be given to s 12A, which empowers the BDT to make either of two orders: an order to remedy, or an order to pay such costs of remedying the building work as the BDT considered reasonable. I do not accept Mr Braham's submission that an order calculated by reference to the costs of demolition and rebuilding is a 'radical departure' from what is contemplated by the terms of the Act. Remedying defects in building work may involve repair or, in other cases, replacement of certain parts. If the problems are substantial enough, remedying the defects may require demolition and reconstruction. What is reasonable will depend upon the circumstances. In Mijatovic v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee [2008] WASCA 115, Martin CJ outlined the following general principles [3] ‑ [4]:It is well established that the precise content of the requirements of procedural fairness in any particular case will depend critically upon the statutory framework within which the relevant power falls to be exercised, and the facts and circumstances of the particular case ‑ see SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCA 63; (2006) 228 CLR 152. Because of the large variety of statutory frameworks in which the obligation to provide procedural fairness arises, and the infinite variety of factual circumstances in which the determination of the precise content of the requirements of procedural fairness might arise, it is impossible to lay down a universally valid test or norm which can be applied to determine whether procedural fairness has been provided in each and every case - see Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1963) 113 CLR 475, at 503–504, (cited with approval in SZBEL).A court required to determine whether a decision maker has departed from the requirements of procedural fairness must therefore analyse all facts and circumstances relevant to the purported exercise of the power, viewed in the context of the statutory framework conferring the relevant power, for the purposes of ascertaining whether there has been practical injustice in the particular case - Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Lam [2003] HCA 6; (2003) 214 CLR 1 at [37]. Section 37 of the Builders Registration Act is in the following terms:(1)The Disputes Tribunal shall cause to be given to a person who is a party to proceedings before the Disputes Tribunal reasonable notice of the time when and place where it intends to conduct those proceedings, and shall afford any such person a reasonable opportunity to call or give evidence, to examine or cross examine witnesses, and to make submissions to the Disputes Tribunal.(2)If a person to whom notice has been given under subsection (1) does not attend at the time and place fixed by the notice, the Disputes Tribunal may conduct proceedings in the absence of the person.