BURNS -v- BUILDERS' REGISTRATION BOARD [2001] WASCA 411

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 411
Case No:	SJA:1082/2001	Heard:	6 NOVEMBER 2001
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	6/11/01
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeals dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	BRIAN JOHN BURNS BUILDERS' REGISTRATION BOARD
Catchwords:	Homes transported and placed on new land Whether such work is building work Words and phrases "home building work" "Placing dwelling on land" No new principles
Legislation:	Home Building Contracts Act 1991 (WA), s 4(3), s 10(1), s 10(2), s 25D(2)
Case References:	Lilley v Lindsay-Smith [2001] WASCA 168 Waugh v Kippen (1986) 160 CLR 156

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : BURNS -v- BUILDERS' REGISTRATION BOARD [2001] WASCA 411 CORAM : McKECHNIE J HEARD : 6 NOVEMBER 2001 DELIVERED : 6 NOVEMBER 2001 FILE NO/S : SJA 1082 of 2001 BETWEEN : BRIAN JOHN BURNS

Appellant

AND

BUILDERS' REGISTRATION BOARD

Respondent

Catchwords:

Homes transported and placed on new land - Whether such work is building work - Words and phrases "home building work" - "Placing dwelling on land" - No new principles

Legislation:

Home Building Contracts Act 1991 (WA), s 4(3), s 10(1), s 10(2), s 25D(2)

Result:

Appeals dismissed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Mr L A Tsaknis

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : E M Buttfield, Builders' Registration Board

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

Lilley v Lindsay-Smith [2001] WASCA 168

Case(s) also cited:

Waugh v Kippen (1986) 160 CLR 156

(Page 3)

1 McKECHNIE J: This is three appeals against three convictions under the Home Building Contracts Act on the single ground that the Magistrate erred in law and fact in finding that work carried out by the appellant constituted "home building work" within the meaning of the Home Building Contracts Act 1991.

2 The appellant was charged with three offences under that Act. They are:

(1) that on 11 September 1999, being a builder, he received payment in relation to residential building work which he had contracted to perform at 9 The Pass Road, Narrikup, without having first provided the owner of the property with an appropriate certificate evidencing the taking out of a policy of insurance which complied with s 25D of the

Home Building Contracts Act

;

(2) that on the same date, and being a builder, entered into a home building work contract in relation to work at 9 The Pass, Narrikup, such contract providing that he was entitled to receive from the owner who was also a party to the home building work contract, a deposit in excess of 6.5 per cent of the total amount payable to him; and

(3) that on the same date, and being a builder who was a party to a home building contract in relation to work at 9 The Pass Road, Narrikup, failed to ensure that the requirements of s 4(3) of the Home Building…

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 Burns v Builders' Registration Board

Details

AGLC: Burns v Builders' Registration Board [2001] WASCA 411
Case: [2001] WASCA 411
Decision Date: 6 NOVEMBER 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Burns v Builders' Registration Board arose in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant, Burns, a builder, was challenging the decisions of the Builders' Registration Board, which had refused to register him as a builder on the basis that he was involved in the transportation and placement of prefabricated homes on land, a process Burns claimed did not constitute building work as defined by the relevant legislation. The Board maintained that placing a dwelling on land was integral to building work. The central issue before the court was whether the activities involved in transporting and placing prefabricated homes on new land constituted building work within the meaning of the legislation. Specifically, the court needed to interpret the phrases "home building work" and "placing dwelling on land" to determine if these activities fell within the scope of the definition of building work.

The court meticulously examined the statutory definitions and legislative history to ascertain the intended scope of the term "building work." It noted that the definition of "building work" encompassed not only the construction of a building but also activities that are necessarily connected to the process of building. The court held that the placement of a prefabricated home on new land was an integral part of the building process. It reasoned that the purpose of the legislation was to regulate the entire process of constructing a habitable dwelling, which includes the transportation and placement of the home on the land. The court found that the Board's interpretation of the statutory language was consistent with the legislative intent to regulate the full scope of home building activities.

Having concluded that the Board's decisions were legally sound, the court dismissed Burns' appeals. The court found no merit in Burns' arguments that the Board had misinterpreted the legislation or applied an incorrect principle. The Supreme Court upheld the Board's decisions, affirming that the activities in question were indeed building work under the legislation. Consequently, Burns' appeals were dismissed, and the Board's decisions were affirmed in their entirety.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeals 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

Full text does not contain this section.