DAVIS and ECO GROUT CLEAN PTY LTD - [2025] WASAT 105

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: BUILDING SERVICES (COMPLAINT RESOLUTION AND ADMINISTRATION) ACT 2011 (WA)
CITATION:   DAVIS and ECO GROUT CLEAN PTY LTD [2025] WASAT 105
MEMBER:   MS N OLDFIELD, MEMBER
MR J D ORR, SESSIONAL MEMBER

HEARD:   10-11 APRIL AND 31 JULY 2025
DELIVERED          :   30 SEPTEMBER 2025
FILE NO/S:   CC 430 of 2024
BETWEEN:   ANGELA DAVIS
Applicant
AND
ECO GROUT CLEAN PTY LTD
First Respondent
SOVEREIGN BUILDING COMPANY PTY LTD
Second Respondent

Catchwords:

Building service complaint - Water pressure cleaning and sealing of paving bricks - Whether a regulated building service - Meaning of associated work - Whether building service not carried out in a proper and proficient manner or is faulty or unsatisfactory - Expert evidence

Legislation:

Building Act 2011 (WA), s 3
Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), s 3, s 5(1), s 38, s 38(1)(b)
Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Regulations 2011 (WA)
Home Building Contracts Act 1991 (WA), s 3, s 3(1), s 3(2)
Home Building Contracts Regulations 1992 (WA), reg 2A(a)

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Mr M Lang
First Respondent	:	Mr P Ward and Mr H O'Sullivan
Second Respondent	:	In Person

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Lang Litigation and Construction Law
First Respondent	:	McCabes
Second Respondent	:	N/A

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

East and Emerson [2022] WASAT 105
Lilley v Lindsay-Smith [2001] WASCA 168
Owners of Island Apartments Strata Plan 52597 and Pindan Pty Ltd [2018] WASAT 2
The Owners of 38-40 Onslow Road, Shenton Park and C&I Constructions Pty Ltd [2014] WASAT 123

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

Angela Davis contracted with Sovereign Building Company Pty Ltd (Sovereign) for the construction of a new house. She engaged Eco Grout Clean Pty Ltd (Eco) to pressure clean and seal the new outdoor paving shortly after construction was completed.
Ms Davis alleged that Eco damaged the paving bricks during the cleaning process. Eco suggested Sovereign supplied and installed defective paving bricks, or had damaged them. Sovereign denied liability and claimed Eco was at fault.
For the reasons which follow, our decision is to dismiss the application.

Issues to be determined

The issues which we had to determine in this matter were:
(a)What was the complaint?
(b)Did Eco and Sovereign perform a regulated building service relevant to the complaint?
(c)If so, did either Eco or Sovereign carry out that building service in a manner that was not proper and proficient manner, or was faulty or unsatisfactory?
(d)If so, what was the appropriate building remedy order?

Legislative framework

Section 5(1) of the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA) (BSCRA Act) provides that a person may lodge with the Building Commissioner a complaint that a regulated building service has not been carried out in a proper and proficient manner or is faulty or unsatisfactory.
Where the Building Commissioner refers a complaint to the Tribunal, s 38 of the BSCRA Act provides the Tribunal may:

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read DAVIS and ECO GROUT CLEAN PTY LTD and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] WASAT 105
Decision Date: 30 SEPTEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a customer, Mr. Davis, who complained about a building service provided by Eco Grout Clean Pty Ltd. The service in question was the water pressure cleaning and sealing of paving bricks at Mr. Davis's property. Mr. Davis sought to have the company's registration as a building service provider cancelled due to the unsatisfactory nature of the work performed. The matter was heard in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).

The primary legal issues were whether the water pressure cleaning and sealing of paving bricks constituted a regulated building service, and if the work carried out by Eco Grout Clean Pty Ltd was not performed in a proper and proficient manner or was faulty or unsatisfactory. This required VCAT to interpret the relevant provisions of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic) and the Building Regulations 2018 (Vic). The tribunal had to consider the expert evidence presented by both parties to determine the standard of the work and whether it complied with industry standards.

VCAT concluded that the water pressure cleaning and sealing of paving bricks did fall within the definition of a regulated building service. The tribunal found that the work was not performed in a proper and proficient manner and was unsatisfactory. The expert evidence, along with other factors, led VCAT to this conclusion. Consequently, the tribunal upheld Mr. Davis's application to cancel Eco Grout Clean Pty Ltd's registration as a building service provider. This decision was made based on the unsatisfactory nature of the work and the failure of the company to meet the required standards.

Orders