Grdosic and Anor and Whittle - [2008] WASAT 118

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: COMMERCIAL & CIVIL

ACT: BUILDERS' REGISTRATION ACT 1939 (WA)

CITATION: GRDOSIC & ANOR and WHITTLE [2008] WASAT 118

MEMBER: MR M SPILLANE (MEMBER)

HEARD: 25 FEBRUARY 2008

DELIVERED : 26 MAY 2008

FILE NO/S: CC 1463 of 2007

BETWEEN: IVAN GRDOSIC
SUSIE GRDOSIC
Applicants
AND
RAYMOND WHITTLE
Respondent

Catchwords:

Builders' Registration Act 1939 (WA) - Application for leave to review decision of Building Disputes Tribunal legislation for the Builders' Registration Act 1939 (WA)

Legislation:

Builders' Registration Act 1939 (WA), s 33A

Result:

Leave refused and application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicants: Mr W Vogt
Respondent: Mr R Shaw

Solicitors:

Applicants: Vogt Graham Lawyers
Respondent: Lavan Legal

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

Tangent Nominees Pty Ltd and Edwards & Anor [2005] WASAT 119
Well Holdings Pty Ltd v Agostino [2001] WADC 174
Wilson v Metaxas [1989] WAR 285
Wing Luck Foods v Lay Choo Lim [1989] WAR 358

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

This was an application for leave to review a decision of the Building Disputes Tribunal to dismiss four items of faulty or unsatisfactory workmanship by the respondent.
The applicants argued that the Building Disputes Tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations and that its decision in respect of the four items was wrong.
Having heard submissions on behalf of both the applicants and the respondent, this Tribunal decided that on the evidence before it, it could not be satisfied that the Building Disputes Tribunal was wrong or that its decision was attended with sufficient doubt to justify granting leave and the application for leave was refused and the matter dismissed.

The application

Mr Ivan Grdosic and Mrs Susie Grdosic (applicants) applied for leave to review the decision of the Building Disputes Tribunal (BDT) in respect of Complaint No 0.16861 heard by the BDT on 28 May 2007 and 20 August 2007, with written reasons published on 10 October 2007.
The BDT's decision dealt with a total of 41 items. Of those, five were dismissed and four of those dismissed items are the subject of the application for leave. They are:
•Item 1.3 - the absence of a damp proof course;
•Item 1.8 - external rendering;
•Item 3.9.1 - particle board floor; and
•Item 1 - electrical meter box.
The amended grounds of review dated 3 December 2007 seek leave to have the BDT decision reviewed on the basis that the BDT erred in fact and/or in law by dismissing the applicants' claim in respect of each of the four items because it failed to take into account relevant considerations in respect of each item.

The facts

A complaint was lodged with the BDT by the applicants against the respondent on 24 March 2006 in respect of alleged faulty or unsatisfactory building work carried out by the respondent at No 48 Fifth Street, Bicton.
An inspection was conducted by an inspector of the Builders' Registration Board (BRB) on 7 August 2006 and a Notice of Assessment dated 15 August 2006 was issued.
An Order to Remedy No 115/2006/07 was issued by the Acting Registrar of the BRB on 16 October 2006 under the delegated authority of s 33A of the Builders' Registration Act 1939 (WA) (BR Act). That order was to be complied with within 28 days of the order being issued.
The builder requested and was given an extension of time by the Acting Registrar until 28 December 2006, to comply with the Order to Remedy. The builder then requested a further extension of time until February 2007, but the applicants objected to a further extension of time and the matter was referred to a hearing of the BDT for determination.
The matter was heard by the BDT on 28 May 2007 and 20 August 2007 with written reasons published on 10 October 2007.

Criteria for grant of leave to review

The applicable principles for grant of leave to review are set out in Tangent Nominees Pty Ltd and Edwards & Anor [2005] WASAT 119. Those principles are in accordance with the previous decisions of the Supreme Court in Wilson v Metaxas [1989] WAR 285, Wing Luck Foods v Lay Choo Lim [1989] WAR 358, and of the District Court in Well Holdings Pty Ltd v Agostino [2001] WADC 174, which are:
1)It must be shown that the decision in respect of which leave is sought is wrong or at least attended with sufficient doubt to justify the grant of leave and in addition that substantial injustice will be done by leaving the decision unreversed.
2)What is the substantial injustice must depend on all the circumstances of the case.
3)In some cases, it will be sufficient to show that there is significant question of law to be considered. In others, it may be possible to point to some other feature which requires the consideration of the court to avoid a substantial injustice if leave is not granted.
4)In the case of reviews of the decisions of the BDT, it is necessary to recognise that it would frustrate the intent and purpose of the legislation on which the BDT's jurisdiction is founded to strictly adhere to ordinary principles of appeals and that it is necessary to be slow to grant leave except in cases where there is no discernable basis for the decision or, for example where fundamental rules of natural justice have been breached by preventing a party adequately being heard.

Consideration of grounds of review

Item 1.3: Absence of damp proof course

The finding by the BDT in respect of this item contained at [34] of its reasons under the heading "Item 1.3" stated:
"Claim that there is no damp course in the external leaf of brickwork of the building. This claim was dismissed because the onus was on the owners to prove that there was no damp course and they failed to do that. In the Better Homes Assured Report Mr Knowles stated that 'there is no evidence of a damp course in the external leaf' and at the end of the report he stated that 'this is a visual inspection only'. He needed to do more than just merely asserting that there is no evidence of a damp course to prove it. He needed to do a physical examination of sections of the brickwork."
The applicants made written and oral submissions to the effect that the BDT failed to take into account the following relevant considerations.
1)The evidence of Inspector Schimpf of the Builders' Registration Board who inspected the works in August 2006 and issued a Notice of Assessment dated 15 August 2006 in which he stated "the visual inspection along the base of the external wall surface has failed to identify the presence of a damp proof course to satisfy the relevant requirement of the Building Code of Australia. The builder confirming the absence of the recommended damp proof course suggested that such measures would not be required in Western Australia."
2)Inspector Schimpf recommended that the builder "[p]rovide an adequate damp proof course at the base of the cavity walls to the new additions to satisfy requirements of the Building Code of Australia cl 3.3.4.5".
It was submitted on behalf of the applicants that although Mr Schimpf was not called as a witness at the BDT that the comments of Inspector Schimpf contained in his Notice of Assessment were "evidence" that:
a)Demonstrated that there is no evidence of damp proof course in the external leaf of the brickwork; and
b)Shows that the builder admitted the absence of the recommended damp proof course to Inspector Schimpf and that this evidence was not contradicted or contested by the builder.
However, the applicants also submitted that there were clear inconsistencies in the builder's evidence in respect of the damp proof course and that the BDT should have made an inference that the builder's evidence in this regard was unreliable.
It appears therefore that evidence, allegedly unreliable or not, was given in respect of this issue before the BDT yet no transcript of that hearing was put before this Tribunal to allow any judgment to be made.
It was also argued by the applicants, that the BDT gave too much weight to the fact that Mr Knowles, the applicants' expert witness, only carried out a visual inspection and did not do a physical examination of sections of the brickwork and that the standard of proof applied by the BDT was too high and that on the balance of probability the BDT should have found that there was no damp proof course in the external leaf of the brickwork if only on the basis of the visual inspection.
The respondent, in its submissions, noted that all of the evidence in respect of the damp proof course was based on a visual inspection of the damp proof course in the external leaf brickwork but that such comments were not accompanied by:
1)Any complaint of watery ingress or dampness penetrating into the internal parts of the house; or
2)Evidence of physical testing.
The respondent submitted that it had in fact contended that a damp proof course was present at the BDT hearing.

Findings on Item 1.3: Absence of damp proof course

At page 96 of the hearing booklet before the BDT, a building inspection report dated 16 February 2006 from Mr Barry Knowles was included. Mr Knowles was called as a witness for the applicant in the BDT and it is Mr Knowles' evidence that the BDT refers to [34] of its reasons for decision in respect of Item 1.3.
Mr Knowles' report begins by stating "as requested by you, a visual inspection was carried out to assess the standard of workmanship ..." and at par 1.3 states "there is no evidence of a damp proof course in the external leaf of brickwork to the new additions, contrary to the requirements of the BCA cl 3.3.4.5".
At page 110 of the hearing booklet before the BDT, the Notice of Assessment by Inspector Schimpf is included. He begins his report by stating:
"Following my inspection of complaint items of 7 August 2006 attended by Mr and Mrs I & S Grdosic and Mr B Knowles (on behalf of the owner) and Messrs RK and R Whittle (on behalf of the builder), (notice dated 27 July 2006 given to Mr and Mrs I & S Grdosic and Raymond Kevin Whittle), my assessment of the work inspected is set out below:
Preamble:
At the commencement of the inspection, the owners and the builder advised having reached a consent agreement at a previous meeting in relation to the majority of items referred to in the Building Inspection Report provided by 'Better Homes Assured' and dated 16.02.2006.
I am now given to understand that the above consent agreement excludes complaint items no 1.2, 1.3, 1.8, 2.9 and 3.5.1 of the independent inspection report and both parties requested the inspector adjudicate and provide assistance in relation to the items in dispute.
..."
On the second page under the heading "2. Complaint" then "Ref. 1.3:", Inspector Schimpf sets out the statement from Mr Knowles' report of 16 February 2006 that "there is no evidence of a damp proof course in the external leaf of brickwork to the new additions, contrary to the requirements of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) Clause 3.3.4.5" and then states:
"Inspector's observations and comments
A visual inspection along the base of the external wall surfaces failed to identify the presence of a damp proof course to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia. The builder confirming the absence of the recommended damp proof course suggested that such measures would not be required in Western Australia.
Action recommended
Provide adequate damp proof coursing at the base of the cavity walls to the new additions to satisfy the requirements of the Building Code of Australia Clause 3.3.4.5."
The inspector's report deals in turn with other matters in dispute and finishes with notices to both parties as to what they may do if they are not satisfied with the assessment.
At page 114 of the hearing booklet, there is a letter dated 4 September 2006 from the respondent addressed to Mr Aitken at the BDT which states:
"As previously advised on the phone last week a consent agreement has previously been reached by myself and the Grdosics of the above address for the majority of maintenance items. With the respect to the Notice of Assessment by the Inspector dated 15th August 2006, all items are agreed to excluding any item as listed below.
All agreed items will be carried out in accordance with program maintenance as per the contract and all work that is currently in hand at this time.
Disputed Item:
•Item 2 (reference 1.3) damp proof coursing (please refer to the attached documentation provided by Vince Spattaco - Brick Layer).
Should you have any further queries, please don't hesitate to contact me."
Finally, at page 118 of the hearing booklet, the Order to Remedy No 115/200607 addressed to the respondent is included which deals with various items listed in the complaint. On page 2 of that document, in the second paragraph, it states:
"Item No. 1.2, 1.3, 1.8, 2.9 and 3.5.1 as shown on the Builders' Registration Board's Inspector's Notice of Assessment dated 15 August 2006 is to be referred to a hearing."
Mr Knowles was called as a witness by the applicants at the BDT hearing, however, Inspector Schimpf did not give evidence and therefore the comment in his report, that the builder admitted the absence of the damp proof course, could not be put to him or be tested in crossexamination.
Furthermore, although all of the parties who attended the inspection, apart from Inspector Schimpf, were at the hearing it is not clear if the issue of the alleged admission by the builder in respect of the damp proof course was put to any of the witnesses as no transcript of the BDT hearing was furnished to this Tribunal.
What is clear is from the documents, is that the issue of whether a damp proof course did exist was clearly an issue of contention from an early date, as per the letter dated 4 September 2006 (page 114 of the hearing booklet) referred to above in which the matter was clearly identified as a disputed item.
Although this Tribunal did not have the benefit of a transcript of the BDT hearing, it was also clear from both the applicants' and respondent's submissions that crossexamination of the builder was undertaken in respect of the damp proof course and it would appear that the builder did dispute the contention that there was no damp proof course present.
The applicants also submitted that there were considerable inconsistencies in the builder's evidence in relation to the damp proof course and that the BDT should have made an inference that the builder's evidence was unreliable.
This Tribunal was not provided with a transcript of the evidence provided to the BDT and when that matter was queried, the applicant confirmed that a decision had been made to run the application for leave without the transcript. This severely limited this Tribunal's ability to deal with the application particularly with respect to submissions regarding evidence before the BDT and when the BDT in its reasons preferred the evidence of one party over the other.
In the circumstances, this Tribunal is unable to judge whether or not the BDT should have made any inferences based on the evidence before it.
As to the weight given by the BDT to the fact that Mr Knowles only carried out a visual inspection and did not do a physical examination of sections of the brickwork, the BDT is a specialist tribunal having the benefit of an experienced builder sitting as part of the panel and it is best placed to judge whether or not a simple visual inspection should be able to confirm the presence of a damp proof course or whether a physical examination of sections of the brickwork are needed.
In all the circumstances, this Tribunal is not satisfied that the BDT gave too much weight to those considerations nor is it satisfied that there is no discernable basis on which the BDT could have reached the decision it did. Indeed, from all of the evidence before this Tribunal, The BDT appears to have reached the correct decision. Furthermore, this Tribunal cannot see on what evidence the BDT should, on the balance of probabilities, have found that there was no damp proof course in the external leaf of the brickwork on the basis of a visual inspection only. In all the circumstances leave to appeal in respect of Item 1.3 is denied.

Item 1.8: External rendering

The finding by the BDT in respect of this item contained at [35] of its reasons under the heading "Item 1.8" stated:
"... Claim that the external render coating is poor. This claim was dismissed. The Tribunal accepted the Builder's evidence that the Owners intended to arrange a further finish over the render coat provided by the Builder and that it was why it was left in the form of a float coat as opposed to a sand render. The building contract only refers to 'render', not to 'sand render' and the float coat provided is a render finish."
The applicants submitted that the BDT failed to take into account:
1)The evidence of Inspector Schimpf contained in his Notice of Assessment dated 15 August 2006 which the applicants said demonstrates that the builder had not complied with his contractual obligations in respect to the rendered surface finish to the exterior of the residence.
2)The evidence of Mr Knowles which corroborated entirely with Mr Schimpf's evidence.
3)The evidence of Mrs Grdosic that there was some inquiry by Mr Whittle of the owners to change the render coat, but that ultimately the owners had said to the builder to revert to the contract.
In their submissions, the applicants referred to a hand written note at the bottom of a letter dated 18 August 2005 included at page 202 of the respondent's papers which stated "were going to get an external provider to do rendering but was part of contract and decided to leave as per" the last words were missing.
In respect of that and other evidence, the applicants submitted that the trust of the evidence was that there was much discussion about the render and the variations to the contract in respect of the render, but that the owner gave clear evidence at the end the day that the hand written note showed that the parties had reverted to the original contract.

Findings as to Item 1.8: External rendering

As to the alleged evidence of Inspector Schimpf, it is noted that in his Notice of Assessment dated 15 August 2006, Inspector Schimpf observed that in his "opinion" the builder had not complied with his contractual obligations. However, having said that, the action he recommended was:
"Based on the fact that this complaint is of a contractual nature the inspector recommends the owner apply to have the matter listed for a determination hearing before the Building Disputes Tribunal."
That is exactly what happened, however, Mr Schimpf did not give evidence before the BDT and therefore his allegations could not be tested.
On the applicants' own submission, there was much discussion about the render and the variations to the contract in respect of it. There appeared to be a number of letters regarding rendering such as 27 May 2004, 17 August 2005, 18 August 2005 and 5 September 2006, all of which were before the BDT. Furthermore, the builder, the owners and Mr Knowles all gave oral evidence and were crossexamined on the matter.
It may well be, as the applicants put it, that the owner gave clear evidence that the parties had reverted to the contract. However, at the end of the day, having heard all of the evidence and examined all of the documents, and having the benefit of seeing the witnesses and hearing the crossexamination, the BDT appears to have preferred the builder's evidence and clearly stated that in its reasons when it said "the Tribunal accepted the builder's evidence".
This Tribunal is not in the position to make a judgment on the conclusion on the BDT came to on the evidence before it as the transcript of the hearing before the BDT was not made available to this Tribunal.

It could not be said on the evidence before this Tribunal that there was no discernable basis for the BDT to come to the decision it did and the applicants have not shown that the BDT's decision is attended with sufficient doubt to justify the grant of leave in respect of this item.

Item 3.9.1: Particle board floor

The finding by the BDT in respect of this item contained at [38] of its reasons under the heading "Item 3.9.1" stated:
"Claim that the particle board floor in the theatre room should be replaced with solid jarrah. Under cross examination the Builder conceded liability for providing a solid jarrah floor. Mr Knowles' costing (Folio 137) stated a labour cost of 8 hours at $45.00 per hour, which the Builder agreed with at the hearing. Mr Knowles' costing (Folio 137) also stated a material cost of $2,340.00 and the costing from Rural Timber Flooring (Exhibit 07) broke this into $1,080.00 for recycled timber flooring and $1,350.00 for sanding and polishing. The specification - Addenda item H2 sates 'Sanding N/A No allowance made to polyurethane existing floors' (Exhibit 02), so there was no requirement for the Builder to sand or polish the floor boards. At the hearing the Builder estimated the material cost of jarrah floor boards to be $980.00. The Tribunal decided to accept the costing provided by Rural Timber Flooring of $1080.00, plus a labour cost of $360.00 as agreed between Mr Knowles and the Builder, being a total allowed to the Owners of $1,440.00."
The applicants' principal submissions were:
1)The BDT failed to take into account that the building contract did not allow for sanding and polishing and that the builder's letter to the owners dated 27 May 2004 describes "new jarrah timber floor for theatre area and a section of meals area".
2)The BDT erred by allowing $1,080 for recycled timber when the contract allows for "New Jarrah timber floor".
3)The BDT incorrectly took into account the following irrelevant considerations:
a)costing from Rural Timber Flooring (Exhibit 07) which allows for recycled timber flooring; and
b)the builder's estimate of the material cost of jarrah floor boards of $980 without any documents supporting that estimate.
In their submissions before the Tribunal, the applicants confirmed that the costing from Rural Timber Flooring (Exhibit 07) referred to in the BDT's reasons for decision was a document provided to the BDT after the hearing by Mr Knowles, the applicants' expert, on behalf of the applicants. Essentially, the applicants' submission came down to the fact that although the letter of costing dated 21 March 2007 from Rural Timber Flooring was supplied to the BDT by the applicants' expert witness, the BDT in choosing the material's costs from that letter incorrectly chose recycled timber rather than new timber.
The applicants alleged the contract allowed for new timber and when asked to explain to this Tribunal whether the BDT had made a mistake applicants' counsel stated:
"Essentially it was, but that's all I can presume; it was a mistake, because there was evidence given about whether or not it was new or recycled, and the owners were insistent that the term of the contract was for new jarrah flooring, not for flooring with holes created by old nails and that didn't meet properly. But they wanted new jarrah flooring and the difference is $500 in price".
The applicants' also submitted that the BDT were incorrect in taking into account the builder's estimate of the material cost of the jarrah floor boards of $980 without any documents supporting that estimate. However, when it was pointed out to the applicants' counsel that the BDT decision did not actually say that, counsel for the applicants' counsel accepted that stating:
"[P]erhaps the only submission is based on the fact that the owners agreed that the parties agreed for new jarrah timber. The Tribunal allowed a costing for recycled timber in circumstances where it shouldn't have and therefore made an error".

Findings as to Item 3.9.1: Particle board floor

Again, this Tribunal is at a great disadvantage at not having the transcript of what was said before the BDT.
Obviously, there was discussion in front of the BDT in relation to this matter and an agreement was reached that the applicants' expert would provide a breakdown of how he had arrived at the material cost for the jarrah floor in his scope of works dated 29 March 2007 and in particular at par 3.9.1 of that scope of works (page 137 of the hearing booklet) which stated:
"Replace the particle board floor in the Theatre room with solid jarrah.
Remove particle board floor

Labour

2 men 4.00 hours @ 90.00

360.00

Material

23.3 m2 JH floor 85 x 19

2430.00

Bin"

It was accepted that following the BDT hearing, Mr Knowles, the applicants' expert, provided the BDT with the letter from Rural Timber Flooring dated 21 March 2007. On the copy of that letter, two amounts were asterisked, namely "recycled timber $1,080" and "installed, sanded and polished" at $1,350 showing a handwritten total at the foot of the letter of $2,430 being the same amount as claimed in Mr Knowles' cost estimates in the scope of work.
It may well be that the builder's letter to the owners dated 27 May 2004 describes "new jarrah timber floor for the theatre area and a section of the meals area", however, there appears to have been numerous letters dealing with variations of many items during this entire matter.
By letter of 17 April 2007, the applicants' solicitors furnished a scope of works and cost estimates dated 29 March 2007 (referred to above) to the BDT for rectifying the items of defective workmanship detailed in the report of Better Homes Assured dated 16 February 2006 and requested that it be included in the Tribunal's hearing booklet.
It would appear that the BDT then accepted and dealt with that document in respect of the timber flooring and requested the applicants' expert, Mr Knowles, to provide a letter explaining the breakdown of how he had arrived at the sum of $2,430 for that item in the scope of works.
Mr Knowles then supplied the letter dated 21 March 2007 from Rural Timber Flooring (referred to above) and in it two amounts were asterisked which are the only two amounts if added together that could make up the item claimed.
Clearly, the BDT was then entitled to conclude that was the breakdown of the sum the applicants were claiming as it had been furnished by the applicants' expert. In its reasons for decision, the BDT addressed that issue by stating:
"Mr Knowles' costing (Folio 137) also stated a material cost of $2,340.00 and the costing from Rural Timber Flooring (Exhibit 07) broke this into $1,080.00 for recycled timber flooring and $1,350.00 for sanding and polishing."
The BDT went on to explain why they would not allow for sanding and polishing and what they would allow for the labour costs.
It is noted that the sum of $2,340 is set out in the BDT's reasons as against $2,430 in the scope of works and other documents. This would appear to be a typographical error or mathematical miscalculation. No satisfactory explanation was given by either party in respect to it and in any event, the difference would not be a sum large enough to create substantial injustice to either party if left unreversed.
Apart from that point, this Tribunal can see no error in the BDT's reasoning on the substantive issues for this item and can see no reason why leave should be granted in respect of this item.

Item 1: Electrical meter box

The finding by the BDT in respect of this item contained at [76] of its reasons under the heading "Item 1 from Owners' letter dated 30 April 2006 to Bruce Havilah & Associates" stated:
"... Claim for the change of the electrical meter board to the new metre box. The Tribunal dismissed this claim. In the Scott Schedule the Builder stated that the new meter will be connected by Western Power and the existing meter box will house all fuses and circuit breakers. At the hearing the Builder explained that he had agreed to put a new electrical meter box outside the front door and to put a circuit breaker box in the garage, as per the list of inclusions in the building contract (Exhibit 04), which he had done and that he had put underground power in at a cost of $900.00, for which he was not paid. The Builder said that Western Power had to install the green dome for the underground power and connect the underground cable installed by the Builder to it and install a new meter in the new meter box installed by the Builder and that Western Power would bill the Owners for that. Mr Vogt, representing the Owners, showed the Builder a tax invoice from Western Power to the Owners (Exhibit 08) for $750.00 for 'underground supply to 1 dwelling point of attachment LHS', which was consistent with the explanation given by the Builder. The Tribunal accepted the explanation by the Builder and decided that the Builder was not liable for the Western Power charges."
The applicants submitted that the BDT erred by refusing the owners claim in that they failed to take into account relevant considerations such as the building contract and items contained in various letters between the parties relating to variations regarding the relocation of the power supply and the meter boxes.

Findings as to Item 1: Electrical meter box

It is clear that extensive evidence was given by both Mrs Grdosic and Mr Whittle at the hearing before the BDT, both of whom were crossexamined by opposing counsel and also questioned by members of the Tribunal following which the BDT in explanation of its reasoning stated "[t]he Tribunal accepted the explanation by the Builder and decided that the Builder was not liable for the Western Power charges".
Without the transcript of the hearing before the BDT it is not possible for this Tribunal to decide whether the wrong decision was reached on the evidence before it.
The documents put before this Tribunal are, on their face, without the benefit of the oral evidence of little use particularly as the BDT made its decision by accepting the oral explanation of the builder as against any documents, or oral evidence of the applicants.
In the circumstances in respect of this item, the applicants have been unable to show that the decision is wrong, or at least attended with sufficient doubt to justify the grant of leave and this Tribunal cannot be satisfied that there is no discernable basis for the BDT's decision and is not prepared to grant leave in respect of this item.

Conclusion

Having found that leave should not be granted in respect of any of the four items applied for, the applicants' application for leave is refused and the matter is dismissed.

Orders

1.The application for leave to review is refused and the matter is dismissed.

I certify that this and the preceding [69] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR M SPILLANE, MEMBER

Labour	2 men 4.00 hours @ 90.00	360.00
Material	23.3 m2 JH floor 85 x 19	2430.00
Bin"