Bryce Built Constructions Pty Ltd v Baseler

Bryce Built Constructions Pty Ltd v Baseler was a case before the Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal, where the applicant, a construction company, sought payment for additional work carried out on a residential property. The respondent, a homeowner, engaged the applicant for renovations, including the replacement of the timber fascia with a colorbond fascia. After the original timber fascia was removed, the applicant installed a standard-sized colorbond fascia, which was found to be unsuitable due to the height of the windows. The applicant proposed a hybrid solution of installing a new timber fascia and adapting the removed colorbond fascia to cover the timber fascia, which was accepted by the respondent.

The applicant invoiced the respondent for the additional work, but the respondent refused to pay. The applicant filed a claim for the unpaid invoice, while the respondent filed a counterclaim, alleging that the rectified work was not in accordance with the original specifications and was defective. The respondent sought a refund of the full amount paid under the contract, reimbursement for the cost of demolishing the fascia and removing asbestos, and rectification of other defective work identified in a building report. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant was entitled to recover the cost of the additional work, whether the respondent was entitled to damages for the replaced work, and whether the use of different-sized flashing at both gable ends was not of an acceptable standard.

The Tribunal found that the colorbond fascia first installed by the applicant's agent was not fit for purpose, as it did not permit the installation of level eaves linings. Therefore, the respondent was entitled to rectification at the applicant's cost, and the applicant's claim was dismissed. The Tribunal found that the hybrid timber-colorbond system adopted by the applicant to rectify the defect was equivalent aesthetically and functionally to a customised full colorbond system and produced an acceptable result. The Tribunal ordered the applicant to rectify the defective work as specified in Order 3 and to pay the respondent $590 by 7 March 2016, comprised of the filing fee for the counterclaim and the cost of the building report. The Tribunal disallowed the respondent's claim for the different-sized roof ridge flashing at both ends of the house, finding that the issue was minor and purely aesthetic, and the work was of an acceptable standard.