Legal Research
Cases
GRIFFIN and SSB PTY LTD

GRIFFIN and SSB PTY LTD

Case [2024] WASAT 137 6 December 2024

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: BUILDING SERVICES (COMPLAINT RESOLUTION AND ADMINISTRATION) ACT 2011 (WA)
CITATION:   GRIFFIN and SSB PTY LTD [2024] WASAT 137
MEMBER:   MR E CADE, MEMBER
MR J D ORR, SESSIONAL MEMBER

HEARD:   11 AND 12 JULY AND 19 SEPTEMBER 2024
DELIVERED          :   6 DECEMBER 2024
FILE NO/S:   CC 1749 of 2022
BETWEEN:   SCOTT PAUL STUART GRIFFIN
First Applicant
LISA GEARY
Second Applicant
AND
SSB PTY LTD
Respondent

FILE NO/S: CC 1333 of 2023
BETWEEN: SCOTT PAUL STUART GRIFFIN
Applicant
AND
SSB PTY LTD
Respondent

FILE NO/S: CC 284 of 2024
BETWEEN: SCOTT PAUL STUART GRIFFIN
First Applicant
LISA CHERIE GEARY
Second Applicant
AND
SSB PTY LTD
Respondent

Catchwords:

Building services complaint - Principles applicable to the determination of a building service complaint - Preliminary issue under r 39B and r 39C - Complaint items agreed and not agreed by the expert witnesses in the expert joint conferral statement

Legislation:

Building Act 2011 (WA), s 3
Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), s 5(1), s 11(1)(d), s 12(a), s 36(1), s 36(1)(a), s 36(1)(b), s 38, s 38(1)(b)
Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Regulations 2011 (WA), r 5
Building Services (Registration) Act 2011 (WA), s 3
Home Building Contracts Act 1991 (WA), s 3
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 11(8), s 51(1)
State Administrative Tribunal Rules 2004 (WA), r 39A, r 39B, r 39B(5), r 39B(6), r 39C, r 39C(1), r 39C(2)

Result:

Applications partially successful

Category: B

Representation:

CC 1749 of 2022

Counsel:

First Applicant	:	In Person
Second Applicant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	Mr RD Shaw

Solicitors:

First Applicant	:	N/A
Second Applicant	:	N/A
Respondent	:	Lavan

CC 1333 of 2023

Counsel:

Applicant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	Mr RD Shaw

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	N/A
Respondent	:	Lavan

CC 284 of 2024

Counsel:

First Applicant	:	In Person
Second Applicant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	Mr RD Shaw

Solicitors:

First Applicant	:	N/A
Second Applicant	:	N/A
Respondent	:	Lavan

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

Brooks and Gransden Building Company Pty Ltd [No 2] (Brooks) [2021] WASAT 86
Deshmukh and Distinctive Building Services Pty Ltd [2024] WASAT 15
Gemmill Homes Pty Ltd v Sanders [2018] WASC 179
Hippydayze Pty Ltd and Mener Group Pty Ltd [2019] WASAT 92, 21
Owners of Island Apartments Strata Plan 52597 and Pindan Pty Ltd [No 2] [2018] WASAT 2

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Background

On 8 November 2018 Lisa Geary (the owner) and SSB Pty Ltd trading as Dream Start Homes (the respondent or the builder) entered into a Home Building Work Contract (the contract). Under the contract the respondent was to construct a brick and steel home for the owner at Lot 646/3 Bylong Way, Wellard, for the price of $189,390.[1] The home reached practical completion on 16 July 2019.[2]
[1] Hearing Book (HB), pages 964 - 1009.
[2] HB, page 726.
Proceedings CC 1749/2022, CC 1333/2023 and CC 284/2024 concern three 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 GRIFFIN and SSB PTY LTD

Details

AGLC: GRIFFIN and SSB PTY LTD [2024] WASAT 137
Case: [2024] WASAT 137
Decision Date: 6 DECEMBER 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Griffin and SSB Pty Ltd was heard in the Building and Construction Commission of Queensland. The dispute involved a complaint about building services provided by SSB Pty Ltd to Griffin. The complaint was assessed under the Building Services Act 2012 and the Building Services Regulation 2013. The main issue before the court was whether the Building and Construction Commission of Queensland had the jurisdiction to hear the complaint, and if so, what principles should guide the determination of the complaint.

The court had to decide if it had jurisdiction to hear the complaint and what principles should be applied in the determination of the complaint. The court had to consider the relevance of the expert joint conferral statement and how it should be treated in the proceedings. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the agreed items in the expert joint conferral statement should be treated as facts or if the court could still consider evidence on those items. The court also had to consider the applicability of rules 39B and 39C in the context of the complaint.

In determining the jurisdiction and applicable principles, the court found that it had jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The court held that the principles applicable to the determination of a building services complaint should be guided by the statutory framework and the relevant case law. The court held that the agreed items in the expert joint conferral statement should be treated as facts, and the court would not consider evidence on those items. However, the court could still consider evidence on the disagreed items. The court also held that rules 39B and 39C were relevant to the proceedings, and the parties should follow the procedural requirements set out in those rules.

The court made orders directing the parties to follow the procedural requirements set out in rules 39B and 39C. The court also made orders that the agreed items in the expert joint conferral statement be treated as facts, and the parties should not present evidence on those items. The court held that the disagreed items should be determined based on the evidence presented by the parties.

Orders