Calandra Constructions Pty Ltd v Director General Department of Finances and Services

[2012] NSWADT 143

Administrative Decisions Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Calandra Constructions Pty Ltd v Director General Department of Finances and Services [2012] NSWADT 143
Hearing dates:	18 June 2012
Decision date:	24 July 2012
Jurisdiction:	General Division
Before:	C Huntsman, Judicial member
Decision:	The decision is set aside
Catchwords:	Breach of statutory warranty; improper conduct- whether established; disciplinary action
Legislation Cited:	Sections 18B, 51, 56, 62, 83B Home Building Act 1989
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Calandra Constructions Pty Ltd, Applicant Director General Department of Finance and Services
Representation:	Counsel Mr Carey, Applicant Mr Massey, (Applicant) Mr Maynard ,Legal Services, Department of Finance and Services, Respondent
File Number(s):	123059

reasons for decision

1. This was an application by Calandra Constructions Pty Ltd, the Applicant, for review of a decision by the Department of Fair Trading (Director-General Department of Finance and Services), the Respondent, to take disciplinary action against the Applicant on the grounds of improper conduct under section 56(c) of the Home Building Act 1989 (the Act). The decision was that the Applicant had breached statutory warranties under section 18B(a) of the Act in respect of residential building work at a premise in Vaucluse, Sydney. The Respondent found that the grounds for taking disciplinary action were made out. The Respondent determined that the Applicant pay as a penalty the amount of $1000.

1. The homeowners who contracted with the Applicant for residential building work, subject of these proceedings, had made a complaint to the Home Building Service, by filing a Home Building Complaint Form dated 26 June 2010. In relation to the complaint, considerable documentary material was provided, including a copy of the contract and the home building insurance, and reports as to alleged building defects, and quotes for the cost of remedial works by consulting engineers and the architect retained by the owners. Following the complaint, a site inspection was conducted by the building inspector, Mr Christy, on 21 July 2010 in the presence of the owner and the architect, and an additional site inspection/visit was conducted on 17August 2010. Mr Christy prepared a Building Inspection report dated 7 September 2010. On 21 September 2010 a decision was made by the Respondent to issue a Notice To Show Cause to the builder. The Notice to Show Cause was issued to the Applicant by the Respondent and dated 14 June 2011, and was served on the applicant on 24 June 2011. Responses were made to the Notice To Show Cause by the Applicant. By letter dated 14th February 2012 the Respondent issued the Notice of Decision of disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant.

1. At a Directions Hearing at the Tribunal on 15 March 2012 the Tribunal directed that the application for review proceed in the absence of an internal review decision. An order was made granting a stay of the Respondent's decision until further order of the Tribunal.

1. The Respondent's findings were based on a building inspection report prepared by a building inspector of the Home Building Service, dated 7 September 2010. Mr Christy identified a number of issues with the Applicant's building work, however, in the Notice of Decision issued by the Respondent on 14 February 2012 only two items were found by the Respondent to have constituted breaches of statutory warranty and grounds for disciplinary action. At the time of the hearing it was common ground that only those items were in issue. The two items are detailed below.

1. The Applicant maintained in correspondence to the Respondent, and in evidence to the Tribunal, that Mr Christy's findings were based on incomplete information and were in error. Evidence was submitted by the Applicant to support the Applicant's contention

1. The application for review was listed concurrently with an application for review of the related decision of the Respondent imposing disciplinary action on the director of Calandra Constructions Pty Ltd, Mr Emelio Calandra (refer file 123062) .

The Law

1. Section 18 B of the Act provides for statutory warranties for residential building work:

The following warranties by the holder of a contractor licence, or a person required to hold a contractor licence before entering into a contract, are implied in every contract to do residential building work:

(a) a warranty that the work will be performed in a proper and workmanlike manner and in accordance with the plans and specifications set out in the contract,

(b) a warranty that all materials supplied by the holder or person will be good and suitable for the purpose for which they are used and that, unless otherwise stated in the contract, those materials will be new,

(c) a warranty that the work will be done in accordance with, and will comply with, this or any other law,

(d) a warranty that the work will be done with due diligence and within the time stipulated in the contract, or if no time is stipulated, within a reasonable time,

(e) a warranty that, if the work consists of the construction of a dwelling, the making of alterations or additions to a dwelling or the repairing, renovation, decoration or protective treatment of a dwelling, the work will result, to the extent of the work conducted, in a dwelling that is reasonably fit for occupation as a dwelling,

(f) a warranty that the work and any materials used in doing the work will be reasonably fit for the specified purpose or result, if the person for whom the work is done expressly makes known to the holder of the contractor licence or person required to hold a contractor licence, or another person with express or apparent authority to enter into or vary contractual arrangements on behalf of the holder or person, the particular purpose for which the work is required or the result that the owner desires the work to achieve, so as to show that the owner relies on the holder's or person's skill and judgment.

1. Improper conduct is provided for in section 51 of the Act:

(1) A holder of a contractor licence who is authorised by the contractor licence to contract to do residential building work or specialist work, or a holder of a supervisor or tradesperson certificate, is guilty of improper conduct if the holder:

(a) commits an offence against this Act or the regulations or section 307A or 307B of the Crimes Act 1900 , whether or not an information has been laid for the offence, or

(b) in the course of doing any work that the licence or certificate authorises the holder to do, fails to comply with the requirements applicable to the work made by or under this or any other Act in respect of the work, or

(c) breaches a statutory warranty, or

(d) in the case of specialist work, does the work otherwise than in a good and workmanlike manner or knowingly uses faulty or unsuitable materials in the course of doing the work, or

(e) becomes a person who is disqualified by this Act or the regulations from holding the licence or certificate, or

(f) commits an offence under the Plumbing and Drainage Act 2011 or the regulations under that Act, whether or not the holder has been convicted of the offence.

(2) The holder of a contractor licence is guilty of improper conduct if the holder:

(a) without reasonable cause, breaches a contract to do any work that the contractor licence authorises the holder to contract to do, or

(c) does not comply with an order of the Tribunal or with an order of a court in respect of a building claim as referred to in Part 3A, or

(d) employs a person or engages a person under a contract for services knowing the person is disqualified from holding a contractor licence, has had an application for an authority refused on a ground relating to the person's character, honesty or integrity or has had an authority cancelled or suspended on a disciplinary ground, or

(e) commits fraud or makes any misrepresentation in connection with any contract authorised by the contractor licence or any contract for the sale of any dwelling, structure or work that has resulted from, or been affected by, any work done under the authority of the contractor licence, or

(f) is convicted of any offence under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 or the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 or any regulations made under either of those Acts.

(3) It is a sufficient defence to a complaint that the holder of a contractor licence has been guilty of improper conduct as referred to in subsection (1) (b), (c) or (d) in connection with work undertaken by the holder, if the holder proves to the satisfaction of the Director-General that the holder did all that could reasonably be required to ensure that a nominated supervisor for that work would exercise such degree of control over the doing of the work as would be necessary to prevent the occurrence of the improper conduct.

(4) It is a sufficient defence to a complaint that the holder of a contractor licence has been guilty of improper conduct as referred to in subsection (2) (d) if, before employing or engaging the person concerned, the holder obtained the approval of the Director-General to the employment or engagement of the person.

1. The grounds for taking disciplinary action against a holder of a contractor licence are set out in section 56 of the Act:

The Director-General may take disciplinary action under section 62 against the holder of a contractor licence on any of the following grounds:

(a) that the holder is not entitled to hold the contractor licence,

(b) that the holder is not a fit and proper person to hold the contractor licence,

(c) that the holder is guilty of improper conduct,

(d) that there is not a sufficient number of nominated supervisors to ensure:

(i) that the statutory warranties for residential building work are complied with, or

(ii) that specialist work is done in a good and skilful manner and that good and suitable materials are used in doing the work, or

(iii) that the requirements applicable to the work made by or under this or any other Act in respect of residential building work or specialist work are complied with,

(e) in the case of a holder of a contractor licence that is a partnership-that any of the members of the partnership, or any of the officers of a corporation that is a member of the partnership, is not a fit and proper person to be a member of the partnership or an officer of the corporation or has been guilty of improper conduct,

(f) in the case of the holder of a contractor licence that is a corporation-that any of the officers of the corporation is not a fit and proper person to be an officer of the corporation or has been guilty of improper conduct,

(g) that the holder has failed to comply with a condition of the contractor licence imposed by a determination under this Part,

(h) that the holder does not meet the standards of financial solvency determined by the Director-General to be appropriate to the class of licence held,

(i) that, in the opinion of the Director-General, there is a risk to the public that the holder will be unable (whether or not for a reason relating to the financial solvency of the holder) to carry out work that the holder has contracted to do (whether before or after the commencement of this paragraph),

(j) that the licence was improperly obtained,

(k) that the Director-General has become aware of information about the licencee that, if known at the time the application for the licence was determined, would have been grounds for refusing the application,

(l) that the holder has knowingly done any residential building work or specialist work before the relevant principal certifying authority has carried out any critical stage inspection required to be carried out under section 109E (3) (d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in relation to the work or has failed to give any notification required under that Act in relation to such an inspection.

1. Disciplinary action may be taken as set out in section 62 is the Act:

If, after compliance with this Division, the Director-General is satisfied that any ground on which disciplinary action may be taken against the holder of an authority has been established in relation to the holder, the Director-General may do any one or more of the following:

(a) determine to take no further action against the holder,

(b) caution or reprimand the holder,

(c) make a determination requiring the holder to pay to the Director-General, as a penalty, an amount not exceeding $11,000 (in the case of an individual) or $50,000 (in the case of a corporation) within a specified time,

(d) vary the authority held by the holder, by imposing a condition on the authority, including a condition requiring the holder to undertake a course of training relating to a particular type of work or business practice within a specified time,

(e) suspend the authority for a period not exceeding its unexpired term,

(f) cancel the authority,

(g) disqualify the holder, either temporarily or permanently, from being any one or more of the following:

(i) the holder of any authority, or any specified kind of authority,

(ii) a member of a partnership, or an officer of a corporation that is a member of a partnership, that is the holder of an authority,

(iii) an officer of a corporation that is the holder of an authority.

1. Section 83B of the Act provides for review of such decisions by the Tribunal. It is well established that on review of a decision the Tribunal is to make the correct and preferable decision, according to the law and evidence, on the material before the Tribunal.

1. In the current matter it was not in dispute that the Applicant was the holder of an authority under the Act, being a contractor licence, to do residential building work. It was also not in dispute that the Applicant was engaged in residential building work at the relevant time. The Applicant's case is that there was no breach by the Applicant of a statutory warranty and no basis for a finding of improper conduct, and therefore no basis for disciplinary action under the Act. The Respondent's case is that the report of Mr Christy supports a finding that there was such a breach of a statutory warranty and accordingly improper conduct and a proper basis for the taking of disciplinary action. The Respondent relies on s51(1)(c) of the Act - improper conduct due to breach of statutory warranty, and in particular a breach of the statutory warranty in s18B(a) - a warranty that the work will be performed in a proper and workmanlike manner and in accordance with the plans and specifications set out in the contract.

The evidence

1. Both parties made detailed written and oral submissions and also presented evidence to the Tribunal at the hearing. The Applicant provided documents under cover letter of Mr Massey, solicitor, of 23 May 2012, which consisted of various correspondence and e-mails between the Applicant, the Applicant's engineer, the Applicant's project manager, and the architecture company involved in the residential building work on behalf of the owner. Those documents are contained in ExhibitA1 of the hearing exhibits. The Applicant also provided an affidavit from Steve Reynolds, contracts administrator for the Applicant, dated 18 June 2012 with Annexures A through to J: those annexures contained plans/drawings relating to the residential building work and copies of correspondence and e-mails. The affidavit with annexures is exhibit A2 in the proceedings. Mr Steve Reynolds also gave evidence to the Tribunal at the hearing.

1. The Respondent provided s58 documents to the Tribunal, received on 19 April 2012. These documents included the complaint by the home owner to the Home Building Service; consultants reports in relation to the complaint including correspondence/ reports by the architect, and a detailed report by an independent quantity surveyor (with additional assessment input by structural engineers and hydraulic engineers) as to costs of rectification works/completion works; and other documentation as to termination of the contract between the home owner and the applicant; Mr Christy's building inspection report of 7 September 2010; and correspondence between the Respondent and the Applicant (including the Notice to Show Cause and Applicant's response). Mr Christy, building inspector, also gave oral evidence to the Tribunal at the hearing.

1. It was common ground at the hearing that only two items as detailed in Mr Christy's report remained in issue, these were items four and five of Mr Christy's report. Accordingly the parties focused their evidence on these two matters. Item 4 related to the concrete slab to the garage having incorrect dimensions - as the garage wall which is connected to the existing laundry wall should have been a certain length but measurements of the wall showed it was a lesser length. Drawing No 0208 - A142 issue 12 confirms the required size, according to Mr Christy. Mr Christy states that the wall is only 1800 mm long and not 2035 mm as required by the working drawings. Mr Christy accordingly found that the concrete slab and brick wall to the garage had not been constructed in a proper and workmanlike manner.

1. Item 5 of Mr Christy's report involved the steel beams to the first floor. It was stated they were cut incorrectly which allowed the beams to be approximately 20 to 25 mm short at both ends where they are fixed the concrete wall. Additionally, with the connection of the steel beams to the concrete wall, the bolt holes have been drilled in incorrect locations with the top holes drilled too close to the top of the concrete. Mr Christy accordingly found that the steel beams to the first floor had not been installed in a proper and workmanlike manner.

1. It was also common ground at the hearing that the inspection by Mr Christy was conducted at the building site in the presence of the owner of the building and the architect. It was conceded that the builder/Applicant was not present during Mr Christy's inspection, nor was the Applicant notified or requested to be present. Mr Christy agreed in his oral evidence that the working drawings and plans on which he relied to make his findings about defective work by the Applicant were drawings supplied to him by the architect and owner during the site inspection. The owner and architect detailed their concerns to Mr Christy during the inspection.

1. It was also common ground at the hearing that the contract for residential building work between the Applicant and the homeowner had been terminated in April 2010 before the inspection by Mr Christy. It was conceded that one of the difficulties in the case was that building work was necessarily incomplete because the owner had terminated the building contract. As such, the Applicant was in the position of being unable to complete work and Mr Christy was in the position of inspecting a building site where work was incomplete.

1. Mr Christy told the Tribunal that he measured, on-site, the dimensions of the brick wall. He stated the brick wall was constructed 250 mm short, based on the drawings given to him by the architect and the owner. Based on his measurement at the site and the drawings given to him by the architect and the owner, Mr Christy formed the view that the brick wall was constructed too short and that this was a defect, and he formed this view on the day of his site inspection. He states the wall was not in the correct location. Mr Christy noted that the garage wall was not in the right place, and that this might mean that two large vehicles could not sit in the garage, and as such the garage dimensions were critical to the owner. The owner told Mr Christy that he would be pulling down the brick wall and extending the garage.

1. In relation to item 5, beams were in position, fastened to bolts at the time of his inspection and supported by props. There were gaps between the end of the beams and the walls, the beams were in position but supported by props. He stated that there was a view of an engineer given to him that the holes were drilled in the wrong location. Mr Christy stated he was not a structural engineer and his decision was based on that information.

1. Under cross-examination Mr Christy indicated that he had been 10 years working for the Respondent and before that he was the principal building technical officer with Telstra and looked after their network and non-network buildings, including project management. His work was mostly commercial/industrial. He did his apprenticeship as a carpenter and joiner and completed a building certificate. He has several years experience in dealing with architects, consultants and local government.

1. Mr Christy did return to the building site after his initial inspection but this was a short visit to confirm some items in his report. The architect took him round on both occasions and gave him access to the site.

1. Mr Christy was shown drawings annexed to the affidavit of Mr Reynolds, in particular annexures A,C,D,E,F,G, H and I. Mr Christy indicated he had not previously seen these drawings. He stated he had seen Annexure G before. Mr Christy was clear in his evidence that his attention was not drawn to the drawings, and correspondence, annexed to Mr Reynolds' affidavit and these had not been considered by him in reaching the conclusions set out in his report.

1. Mr Christy was shown the various plans and drawings attached to Mr Reynolds' affidavit and in particular noted the dotted line marked A on the plans. He agreed that this same line was drawn on various of the plans attached to Mr Reynolds' affidavit, but was not contained on the drawing given to him during the site inspection by the architect and owner. Mr Christy agreed with the proposition that the garage wall ended on the line marked as A on the plans, and that this was also the location of the garage wall constructed by the Applicant. Mr Christy agreed under cross-examination that the drawings were not consistent. Mr Christy was asked to assume for the purposes of comment that the garage wall was intended by the contract to be built on grid line A and that the drawing accurately reflects where the existing laundry wall was placed. It was then put to Mr Christy that the new garage wall was in fact constructed on grid line A as required. He agreed that the length of the garage wall had to be dictated by the location of the laundry wall and the location of the eastern wall. Mr Christy agreed that if the wall was to be extended to the dimensions as shown on the drawing given to him by the architect then the dotted line, grid line A, would need to be moved. Mr Christy was unaware that the builder had criticisms of the architect during the building work. Mr Christy accepted the possibility that the architect had not provided complete information to him. Mr Christy stated that his opinion was based on the observations he made on the day and the information given to him. He stated that it was an authorised drawing that he was shown so it was relevant information but agreed that he was not given all information.

1. In relation to item 5 of his report Mr Christy conceded that there were two issues of concern to him initially. The first issue, being a 20 mm gap, Mr Christy accepted that the specifications in the plans said that a 20 mm gap needed to be allowed for. Mr Christy agreed that the only defect of any concern remaining in item 5 was the issue of the bolts. Mr Christy maintained that he formed his own opinion during a site inspection and did not rely on what the owner or the architect told him. However he also conceded under cross-examination that his conclusions in relation to item 5 were dictated by what the architect had told him was required, and further agreed he was not a structural engineer.

1. Mr Christy was shown Annexure E to Mr Reynolds' affidavit which shows a series of cross-section drawings. In particular detail 10A shows the beam and steel beams. It was put that they were not at the same height and Mr Christy could not be sure, could not say either way, but agreed he had not ever seen this drawing. In relation to Annexure C Mr Christy agreed that on this diagram the height of the beam is different to the previous diagram. In relation to detail 10A and the measurement of 135 m Mr Christy understood it to be a reference to spacing where the holes are to be placed and said he hadn't seen this document before. In relation to pages 23 to 29 of the affidavit of Mr Reynolds, Mr Christy stated that he had not seen these documents or drawings before.

1. Mr Reynolds provided a written affidavit and oral evidence to the Tribunal. He states that at all material times, until the contract was terminated in April 2010, he was Calandra's project manager at the site and responsible for day-to-day management of work. Building work commenced at the site or about 3 August 2009 in accordance with plans and specifications provided by the architect retained by the owners. From time to time it was also necessary to request information and/or direction from other consultants retained by or on behalf the owners including the structural engineer, and the surveyor. The scheduled date for completion of the works under the contract was December 2010. On 17 March 2010 Calandra Constructions Pty Ltd ("Calandra") sent a letter to the owners (annexure A). On 9 April 2010 Calandra received notice from the solicitor for the owners that the contract had been terminated. Proceedings were subsequently commenced against Calandra by the owners and across claim was filed by the Applicant. The proceedings were transferred to the Supreme Court and resolved by consent orders on or about April 2012. Mr Reynolds understands that a complaint, from which the decision and proceedings in the present matter arise, was made to the Department of Fair Trading on 28 June 2010. He understands from documents shown to him subsequently that Mr Christy conducted site inspections on 21 July 2010 and 17 August 2010. Calandra was not invited to attend either site inspection nor was it aware of the investigation until it received a copy of a Notice To Show Cause on 14 June 2011. Mr Reynolds states that he has been made aware by Mr Emilio Calandra (Director of Calandra Constructions Pty Ltd) that he also was not aware of the investigation nor invited to attend a site inspection. In relation to each of the alleged defects Mr Reynolds states as follows.

1. Item 4 - Mr Reynolds notes that Mr Christy relied on drawing number 0208 - A142 issue 12 (page 234 of section 58 documents). He notes Mr Christy's view that the wall should have been constructed 2035 mm long and measured instead at 1800 mm length. Mr Reynolds does not dispute the length of the wall, but disputes that the contract required differently. Mr Reynolds notes that the contract required the owners to provide the Applicant with sufficient information to enable it to properly set out the works prior to construction and to have the set out of the works certified by licensed surveyor. The Applicant arranged for the surveyor to set out and certify the setting out of the relevant part of the works on or about the boundaries, grid lines and radial points. This was done by the surveyor according to grid lines included in various drawings issued by the architect. A survey plan was completed by the surveyor in October 2009 (annexure C to affidavit). Mr Reynolds describes grid line A on each of the drawings. Grid line A was set out by the surveyor on the ground at the site with offset marks from survey pins located. Drawing 0208 - 142 issue2, which also forms part of the contract, specifies that the Eastern garage wall was to be constructed on grid line A which is precisely where the Applicant constructed it. Drawing number 0208 - A 143 issue 12 also specifies that the Eastern garage wall should be constructed on grid line A, though the grid line itself is not so easily identified on that drawing. Further, drawing number 0208 - A 143 issue 12 (the first floor) specifies that the exterior wall of the terrace above the garage was also to be built on grid line A. (Annexure D). Mr Reynolds states that it was not possible to construct the new section of the southern garage wall to the dimension nominated in drawing number 0208 - A142 issue 12, and also to comply with the requirement that the Eastern garage wall and the first-floor exterior terrace wall (above the garage) be constructed on grid line A.

1. In about mid- March 2010 Mr Reynolds contacted an officer of the architect by telephone and informed him of the discrepancy in relation to the specification of the length of the new section of the southern garage wall. He never heard anything more from the architect about this and a few weeks later the Applicant was dismissed from the site. He would have followed the matter up further however the Applicant was terminated shortly thereafter. Mr Reynolds notes Mr Christy's expressed view that there was still sufficient area behind the abutting wall to allow the southern section of the garage wall to be constructed to what he says was it specified length of 2035 mm. By abutting wall Mr Reynolds assumes Mr Christy means the Eastern garage wall. He states Mr Christy's suggestion would have involved the construction of the Eastern garage wall off grid line A and much closer to the boundary wall as can be seen from the drawings. This in turn would have reduced the width of the pathway behind the garage. He cannot comment on whether such an alteration to the design would have been consistent with the relevant development consent.

1. Item 5 - Mr Reynolds notes that Mr Christy concludes that two prefabricated steel beams to support the first-floor were incorrectly cut and not installed properly. He notes that photographs of the beams and joins concerned can be seen in Mr Christy's report. It was noted in the hearing that the issue of the beams being 20 to 25 mm short did not need to be addressed as Mr Christy had conceded that this was not a fault by the builder. The other issue was that the design called for prefabricated steel beams to be bolted to the pre-existing circular concrete beam. Mr Reynolds notes Mr Christy's finding that the boltholes in the adjoining concrete beam were drilled in the incorrect position such that the top bolthole for each beam was too high and too close to the top of the concrete beam. Mr Reynolds states that it is not correct to say that the holes were drilled in the wrong place, and he states that Mr Christy does not appear to have been made aware of the full facts. On close inspection of TTW Drawing S 410 - 1, section 10, in detail 10 A (Annexure E to his affidavit) it can be seen that the drawing assumes the highest of the pre-existing circular concrete beam is the same as that of the prefabricated steel beam, two vertical rows of bolts were to be inserted through holes drilled in place at the end of each steel beam and corresponding holes drilled in the pre-existing circular concrete beam to join the two together; and the minimum distance between the bolt and boltholes was required to be 135 mm. Mr Reynolds states that boltholes were initially drilled in the steel plates and lined up with corresponding holes and steel plates.

1. However, upon lifting the beams it became apparent that the height of the pre-existing circular beam was not the same as had been assumed in drawing S410-1, section 10, detail 10 A. Mr Reynolds contacted the architect to seek direction, the architect attended the site on 16 November 2009 and issued direction S K - 002 (Annexure G to affidavit). This direction required the Applicant to remove the top row of bolts and drill further lower holes in the concrete beam so as to lower the top row of bolts to achieve the minimum distance of 95 mm. However, the measurements taken by the architect on 16 November appeared to be incorrect and had the Applicant followed that direction, it would not have been possible to achieve the minimum distance of 135 mm. He sent an e-mail to the architect on about 27 November 2009 seeking further direction, and a copy of that e-mail is annexed to the affidavit and marked H. Mr Reynolds states he followed up about this issue again on 1 December 2009 and 4 December 2009 with formal requests for information, (copies of which are annexed to the affidavit, marked I). Mr Reynolds subsequently carried out the measurements and drew the diagram attached to the request dated 4 December 2009. In response, the architect issued a further direction on 11 December 2009 requiring the removal of the top horizontal row of bolts altogether and the addition of further plate, to be welded to the side of the existing steel plates at the end of each steel beam, and a further vertical row of two bolts to be inserted into the extended plate beside the existing bolts. A copy of the direction is Annexure J to Mr Reynolds affidavit. However the Applicant's role at the site was terminated before this procedure could be completed in accordance with SK - 007.

1. Mr Reynolds notes the Respondent's observation that the steel beams were secured by propping, and states that this was required until such time as a permanent masonry wall could be constructed under them as the permanent support, as originally and always called for by the design. However, the Applicant's role at the site was terminated before this procedure could be completed. Under cross- examination Mr Reynolds was asked about the content of Annexure A to his affidavit, being the letter from the Applicant of 17 March 2010. It was put to Mr Reynolds that the correspondence indicated that there were issues in relation to the adequacy of the directions given to the builder. He was asked whether he had raised these concerns earlier with the owner and/or architect and Mr Reynolds stated that he had done so through requests for direction and information, and also during weekly site meetings where he also requested clarification and information. While awaiting direction and clarification the Applicant would refocus their work on the site to a different location so as to be able to keep progressing the building work.

The parties' submissions

1. The Respondent submitted that there may be exculpatory reasons for some non-compliance by the Applicant in this case, on the evidence, but submitted that the Act requires full compliance and the Tribunal would not be satisfied that the work was fully compliant. The Respondent submitted that the Tribunal should find that there was defective work, and the exculpatory factors would go to the penalty, so that it might be sufficient to find defective work and to say no penalty was appropriate. The Respondent further submitted that the low penalty which the Respondent indeed gave in this case indicated their view of the gravity of the breaches as being at the low end.

1. The Applicant submitted that the Tribunal has to be satisfied that the Respondent has made out the grounds for disciplinary action, that is, the Tribunal needs to be satisfied that there was improper conduct given breach by the Applicant of statutory warranties. The Applicant noted that the Respondent relies on Mr Christy's opinion and that the evidence discloses that that opinion was not based on all relevant documents and information. The primary source of the information was from the architect and this was in the context of a dispute between the owner and the builder in which the architect had a role. This was also in the context of the builder having made criticisms of the architect. The Applicant submits that the uncontested evidence of Mr Reynolds, in relation to item 4 of Mr Christy's report, is that the wall of the garage was required to be built on grid line A and was in fact built on grid line A. The existing wall and the existing laundry wall require this is also. There was no scope for the garage wall to reach the length specified in the drawing given by the architect to Mr Christy and relied on by Mr Christy. Mr Christy noted that the drawings were inconsistent and in particular the drawing given to Mr Christy was inconsistent with other drawings. The Applicant submitted that no breach of statutory warranty was established. Mr Reynolds raised the discrepancy with the architect but given the termination of the Applicant's contract with the owner this could not be pursued. In relation to item 5 it was submitted that the Tribunal would be satisfied that there was a discrepancy in the drawings in relation to the height of the concrete beam. As such it cannot be said that there was a building defect established.

1. The Applicant submitted that the Tribunal should find on the facts and evidence, and according to law, that no breach of statutory warranty by the holder of the contractor licence, the Applicant, was established on the evidence. In the alternative the Tribunal, if not so satisfied, should vary the decision to an order that no further action be taken, having regard to all the evidence submitted.

Discussion of law and evidence and Tribunal's findings

1. The Tribunal has considered all of the documentary evidence submitted by the parties, and the evidence presented at the hearing including the evidence of the witnesses. The Tribunal finds that Mr Christy's inspection and subsequent report was based on a site visit in the presence of the architect and owner. The Applicant builder was not present. The builder's views were not considered by Mr Christy in forming his conclusions and writing his report. It appears from the evidence that the first input by the Applicant was at the time of the response to the Notice to Show Cause.

1. The Tribunal finds, consistently with the evidence of Mr Christy and Mr Reynolds, that the plan/drawing given to Mr Christy, during the site inspection, by the architect, was not consistent with other drawings as attached to the affidavit of Mr Reynolds. The Tribunal found the evidence of Mr Reynolds to be very clear and detailed and to be supported by contemporaneous records such as copies of correspondence, emails and plans/drawings. The Tribunal has no basis to reject the evidence of Mr Reynolds given its clarity and its consistency with other documents. The Tribunal accepts the un-contradicted evidence of Mr Reynolds that the plans envisaged the garage wall (re -item 4) to be built on grid line A. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr Reynolds that the wall was in fact built on grid line A having regard to all of the evidence presented on this issue. The Tribunal accordingly finds that the wall/slab was built in accordance with the plans and contract, and there is no evidence indicating that it was otherwise not built in a proper and workmanlike manner. The Tribunal finds that the finding of Mr Christy that the wall was built short and not in accordance with the plans, is incorrect. The Tribunal finds that the evidence supports a conclusion that the wall was built on grid line A in accordance with the plans. The Tribunal found Mr Reynolds to be clear and concise in his evidence and he supported his evidence with the records of communications with the architect and copies of plans. He clearly explained the role of the surveyor, the survey points on the site, and the location of grid line A and the Tribunal accepts his evidence in relation to this. The Tribunal makes no criticism of Mr Christy, and accepts Mr Christy's evidence that he made his recommendations and report based on his own opinion and not the opinion of the owner and the architect. However, the Tribunal considers that Mr Christy was given a plan/drawing which was inconsistent with a number of other plans/drawings and that his conclusion was incorrect because it was based on incomplete information.

1. In relation to the boltholes, item 5, the Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr Reynolds, which was supported by drawings and records attached to his affidavit, that he had numerous conversations with the architect seeking clarification in relation to the placement of the bolts and the holes and the beams. The Tribunal accepts his evidence that he was given different directions and followed those directions. The Tribunal accepts the evidence also that the work was incomplete, and the beams left supported by propping, because the Applicant's contract with the owner of the residential premises, was terminated.

1. On the evidence overall in this matter the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Respondent has established that the Applicant performed work that was not in a proper and workmanlike manner, or work that was not in accordance with the contract and plans, in relation to items four and five of Mr Christy's report. The Tribunal is not satisfied considering the evidence overall in this matter that the Applicant built the garage wall too short and not in accordance with plans and survey diagrams. The Tribunal is also not satisfied, considering the evidence and in particular the drawings annexed to Mr Reynolds affidavit, that the Applicant performed work that was not in a proper and workmanlike manner or not in accordance with the contract/plans, in relation to the steel beams and bolts specified by Mr Christy in item 5 of his report. The Applicant's explanations are supported by evidence, and are plausible, and the Tribunal accepts that on seeking clarification in relation to the measurements of the bolts and the beams the Applicant received further directions from the architect and remained dissatisfied with the workability of those directions. This could not be further pursued because the contract for work was terminated. The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence that the Applicant performed work that was not in a proper and workmanlike manner, or work that was not in accordance with the contract and plans, in relation to items 4 and 5 of Mr Christy's report. Accordingly the Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence that the Applicant breached statutory warranties in relation to this work.

1. As the Tribunal is not satisfied that the evidence established that the Applicant breached statutory warranties, on the basis contended by the Respondent on Mr Christy's report, then the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant was guilty of improper conduct. As such the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a basis for disciplinary action under the Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal has decided that there is no basis in law for imposition of the penalty as there is no improper conduct or breach of statutory warranty. Therefore, the correct and preferable decision, according to the law and the evidence, is that the decision under review be set aside.

1. The Tribunal further recommends that if there has been any entry in the Register, pursuant to s120 of the Act, in relation to the penalty imposed in this matter, that given the Order to set aside the decision, the Director General amend the Register pursuant to s120(4) of the Act.

**********

Decision last updated: 24 July 2012