J-CORP Pty Ltd and LY and Anor
[2006] WASAT 132
•24 MAY 2006
J-CORP PTY LTD and LY & ANOR [2006] WASAT 132
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2006] WASAT 132 | |
| BUILDERS' REGISTRATION ACT 1939 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CC:3106/2005 | 16 JANUARY 2006 | |
| Coram: | MR C RAYMOND (SENIOR MEMBER) | 24/05/06 | |
| 16 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for leave granted | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | J-CORP PTY LTD VO LY SAI GHET DUONG |
Catchwords: | Application for leave to review and review Whether obligation to construct in a proper and workmanlike manner requires dwelling to withstand site conditions Whether risk of site conditions lie with proprietors |
Legislation: | Builders' Registration Act 1939 (WA), s 12A, s 12A(1), s 38(3), s 41, s 41(2) Home Building Contracts Act 1991 (WA), s 15, s 17 |
Case References: | Mansal Pty Ltd v Brokenshire (Unreported, Supreme Court of Western Australia; 3 December 1982) Tangent Nominees Pty Ltd and Edwards & Anor [2005] WASAT 119 Tangent Nominees Pty Ltd v Edwards & Anor [2006] WASC 45 Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australasian Performing Right Association Limited (1973) 129 CLR 99 Basildon DC v JE Lesser (Properties) Ltd (1985) 1 All ER 20 Bilek v Vata Investments Pty Ltd [2005] WASAT 153 Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1981 – 1982) 149 CLR 337 Goldfields Homes Pty Ltd v Blacker (1999) 23 SR (WA) 75 Hide & Skin Trading Pty Ltd v Oceanic Meat Traders Ltd (1990) 20 NSWLR 310 Ownit Homes Pty Ltd v Batchelor (1983) 2 Qd R 124 Shepperd v Ryde Corp (1952) 85 CLR 1 Wilson v Metaxas [1989] WAR 285 Wing Luck Foods v Lay Choo Lim [1989] WAR 358 |
Orders | On the application heard before Senior Member Clive Raymond on 24 May 2006, it is ordered that:,1. The minute of proposed amended grounds of appeal filed on 5 January 2006 stands as the amended grounds of review and further service thereof is dispensed with.,2. Leave is granted to the applicant to review the decision of the Building Disputes Tribunal reflected in Order to Remedy No 60/2005-06 dated 3 August 2005 in relation to grounds of review 2 and 3;,3. The costs of the application for leave, if any costs may ultimately be awarded, be reserved. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : COMMERCIAL & CIVIL ACT : BUILDERS' REGISTRATION ACT 1939 (WA) CITATION : J-CORP PTY LTD and LY & ANOR [2006] WASAT 132 MEMBER : MR C RAYMOND (SENIOR MEMBER) HEARD : 16 JANUARY 2006 DELIVERED : 24 MAY 2006 FILE NO/S : CC 3106 of 2005 BETWEEN : J-CORP PTY LTD
- Applicant
AND
VO LY
SAI GHET DUONG
Respondents
Catchwords:
Application for leave to review and review Whether obligation to construct in a proper and workmanlike manner requires dwelling to withstand site conditions Whether risk of site conditions lie with proprietors
Legislation:
Builders' Registration Act 1939 (WA), s 12A, s 12A(1), s 38(3), s 41, s 41(2)
Home Building Contracts Act 1991 (WA), s 15, s 17
(Page 2)
Result:
Application for leave granted
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr S Pentony
Respondents : Ms A Dowley
Solicitors:
Applicant : Hotchkin Hanley
Respondents : Jackson MacDonald
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Mansal Pty Ltd v Brokenshire (Unreported, Supreme Court of Western Australia; 3 December 1982)
Tangent Nominees Pty Ltd and Edwards & Anor [2005] WASAT 119
Tangent Nominees Pty Ltd v Edwards & Anor [2006] WASC 45
Case(s) also cited:
Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australasian Performing Right Association Limited (1973) 129 CLR 99
Basildon DC v JE Lesser (Properties) Ltd (1985) 1 All ER 20
Bilek v Vata Investments Pty Ltd [2005] WASAT 153
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1981 1982) 149 CLR 337
Goldfields Homes Pty Ltd v Blacker (1999) 23 SR (WA) 75
Hide & Skin Trading Pty Ltd v Oceanic Meat Traders Ltd (1990) 20 NSWLR 310
Ownit Homes Pty Ltd v Batchelor (1983) 2 Qd R 124
Shepperd v Ryde Corp (1952) 85 CLR 1
Wilson v Metaxas [1989] WAR 285
(Page 3)
Wing Luck Foods v Lay Choo Lim [1989] WAR 358
(Page 4)
Summary of the Tribunal's decision
1 The applicant applied for leave to review a decision of the Building Disputes Tribunal dated 3 August 2005. The Order to Remedy required that, amongst other things, the applicant restore the respondent's house and its foundations to a proper and workmanlike condition.
2 The applicant had constructed a residential dwelling for the respondents in accordance with its own design and engineering drawings. The Building Disputes Tribunal determined that the applicant had to carry out the works in a proper and workmanlike manner so that the dwelling was fit for purpose, and would otherwise be in breach of s 12A of the Builders' Registration Act 1939 (WA).
3 As a result of peat and other deleterious materials being present at some depth below the surface of the site, the slab and the footings were of an inadequate design, the house had subsided and cracking had become evident in the walls of every room in the dwelling.
4 The applicant's primary argument had two limbs. Firstly, that design work did not constitute building work within the meaning of that term in s 12A of the Builders' Registration Act 1939. Secondly, that where a builder, through its engineer, had exercised due care and skill in designing the floor slab and footings, and had then constructed the same in accordance with the design, it was not possible to conclude that the building work had not been carried out in a proper and workmanlike manner. The Tribunal concluded that the first limb of the argument did not arise from the Building Disputes Tribunal reasons for decision. Further, in relation to the second limb, the Building Disputes Tribunal had concluded correctly that the slab and footings were inadequate for their purpose of providing a stable foundation. In accordance with authority, footings that were not capable of sustaining the weight of the building built upon it constituted faulty and unsatisfactory building work and such a finding was not displaced by the work having been properly carried out in accordance with the design and specifications prepared by a consulting engineer engaged by the applicant.
5 However, the Building Disputes Tribunal appeared to have failed to take into consideration the effect of a clause in the building contract which provided that the respondents warranted that the site would support the works. If a brief reference to there being no unforeseen ground conditions clauses in standard residential building contracts was intended
(Page 5)
- to make a finding as to the effect of the clause, the reasons for decision were inadequate. The Tribunal accepted that it was open to argue, and with reasonable prospects of success, that the effect of the clause was to allocate risk for site conditions to the respondents so that, if, in those circumstances, it could be shown that due care and skill had been used in the design of the slab and footings, no liability would attach to the applicant. The Tribunal also found that a significant question of law was raised by the proposed review.
6 In the circumstances, the Tribunal granted leave to review the decision on the basis of the second limb raised. Leave was also given in respect of a further ground relating to an order that the applicant pay the respondents' costs associated with the applicant carrying out the remedial work. No reasons for decision were given to support the order and no specific costs, or even category of costs, were identified. Any claim for specific costs should have been raised before the Building Disputes Tribunal, evidence should have been taken and that evidence should have been assessed and reasons given explaining the rationale for any determination made.
Application
7 This is an application for leave to review a decision of the Building Disputes Tribunal (Disputes Tribunal) reflected in an Order to Remedy No 60/2005-06 dated 3 August 2005, which decision is reviewable by the State Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) pursuant to s 41 of the Builders' Registration Act 1939 (WA) (BR Act), subject to the grant of leave under subsection 41(2) thereof.
Grounds for review
8 The applicant filed a minute of proposed amended grounds of appeal [sic] and the matter was conducted on the basis that it applied. It appears that no order has been made for leave to amend the grounds of review and, in the circumstances, the Tribunal will make an order to remedy that situation so that the minute stands as the amended grounds of review.
9 The amended grounds are as follows:
"1. The BDT erred in law in finding that design of the footings and slab was building work within the meaning of that term in section 12A.
(Page 6)
- 2. The BDT erred in law in finding that, if the design of footings and slab is building work within the meaning of that term in section 12A, the Applicant did not carry out that building work in a proper and workmanlike manner, and thereby breached section 12A, by failing to find that:
(a) in accordance with the uncontested evidence that the Applicant constructed the home the subject of its building contract with the Respondents in accordance with the plans and details, the Applicant could not be said to have carried out building work in anything other than a proper and workmanlike manner;
(b) the Applicant carried out building work in proper and workmanlike manner by reason of the uncontested evidence that it took every reasonable step in assessing the site and designing the footing detail and constructing the home in accordance with the plans and details.
3. The BDT erred in law in making an order that the Applicant 'pay all costs of the Owners associated with the remedial action to be taken' without making provision for the exact nature of the costs claimable there under and/or defining with sufficient precision, or at all, what costs were 'associated' costs."
10 Both parties have provided extensive written submissions, which were supplemented by oral submissions at the hearing of the application.
The decision under review and background
11 The Disputes Tribunal published written reasons for its decision on 1 August 2005.
12 The reasons for decision set out the factual background. The respondents purchased a block of land on which the applicant constructed a residential house for them pursuant to a written building contract. The applicant was responsible for preparing the plans and instructed an engineer to prepare the necessary engineering drawings.
(Page 7)
13 The block had been vacant land for some 15 to 20 years prior to its purchase by the respondents. The land as purchased was not in its natural condition and had been infilled. The dwelling has subsided, resulting in cracks appearing in the walls of every room in the house. Subsequent tests established that the land had been filled, in part by the use of uncontrolled fill, and there was evidence that, at various depths, there was gravel, coal, silt and cinders. Below these materials, there is evidence of soft black peat.
14 The Disputes Tribunal found that, as a matter of fact:
(a) the material on which the house is built is unsuitable for the design of the foundations adopted by the builder; and
(b) the extent of cracking means that the building work comprising the foundations of the house has not been carried out in a proper and workmanlike manner to be suitable for a longterm existence, even though initially the house itself was constructed to a superficially appropriate standard.
15 The Disputes Tribunal summarised the evidence which had been given on behalf of the builder by Mr Purich, a structural engineer, whose firm had issued a certificate of inspection of the site and classified it as a Class "A" site for which a particular footing design described as detail "D 10" was appropriate. His firm provided the necessary engineering drawings to the applicant.
16 Based on Mr Purich's evidence, the applicant advanced an argument to the effect that the applicant, through its engineer, had followed the usual practice and that, accordingly, "the risk for unforeseen developments went back to the Owner". The Disputes Tribunal rejected this argument as negating "any liability of the Builder to take responsibility for its professional expertise in the construction of the dwelling, notwithstanding that the Owners have no such expertise and have no input into the final design". The Disputes Tribunal went on to pose and answer the question of whether the design was suitable or faulty for the actual conditions. The Disputes Tribunal concluded that the design was undeniably faulty and that, although the contract is designed to be strongly in favour of the builder, it did not, nor could it, evade the obligation imposed by s 12A of the BR Act "to result in a building which is constructed in a proper and workmanlike manner, which means built to the standard conditions applying to that block".
(Page 8)
- After referring to authority, the Disputes Tribunal concluded that the applicant's dwelling is not reasonably fit as a dwelling place. It was specifically found that the applicant is liable on the grounds that the original foundation material was inappropriate for a standard design of house and footings, that the foundations are inadequate for the purpose of providing a stable foundation and have not been constructed in a proper and workmanlike manner. The Disputes Tribunal made orders as follows:
1. The builder is to take the necessary remedial action to restore the house and its foundations to a proper and workmanlike condition.
2. The builder is to be given until 30 November 2005 to take such action, with liberty to apply to the Registrar for an extension of time where conditions require it.
3. The builder is to pay all costs of the owners associated with the remedial action to be taken.
17 The applicant relies on the affidavit of Shane Daniel Pentony sworn on 17 October 2005. Mr Pentony is the solicitor for the applicant, and appeared on its behalf at the hearing before the Disputes Tribunal. Annexed to his affidavit were copies of relevant documents, including the Disputes Tribunal's book of documents, within which was a document that was obviously accepted as being a copy of the relevant building contract. Mr Pentony testified as to the evidence which had been given by Mr Purich.
The parties' submissions
18 The applicant's submissions were directed at addressing the requirements for the grant of leave and then turned to address the issues raised by the merits of the application. The applicant acknowledged that the effect of Mr Purich's evidence before the Disputes Tribunal supported the conclusion that the footings and slab of the dwelling were inadequately designed. It was submitted that the cracking of the walls did not result from the use of any inadequate or inappropriate materials or inadequate work processes causing defects in the actual slab and footings.
19 The applicant contended that the design of the footings and slab was not "building work" within the meaning of that phrase in s 12A.
(Page 9)
20 In the alternative, if the design constituted "building work", the applicant advanced submissions, in anticipation of a claim being advanced under the Home Building Contracts Act 1991 (WA) (HBC Act) that it was not open to imply a term as to fitness for purpose. The applicant's contention was that all that could be implied was an obligation to exercise due care skill and attention. Further alternatively, the applicant contended that if it was to be implied that the result would be fit for purpose, the term should be subject to "reasonableness", that is, that the work be reasonably fit for the intended purpose in all the circumstances. Finally, submissions were advanced endeavouring to distinguish the authorities relied upon by the respondents.
21 The respondents filed submissions which, in the first instance, supported the Disputes Tribunal's decisions. The respondents went further, however, to submit that if leave is granted, the hearing would be a hearing de novo and that, accordingly, it would be open to make the orders already made under either s 12A(1), s 12A of the BR Act or s 17 of the HBC Act. In summary, it was submitted that the applicant's submissions were relevant only to a contract in which the builder's obligation was limited to the obligation to build in accordance with the plans and specifications supplied by the owner; that in this case, the contract was to produce a result, namely a house that was fit for its intended purpose as a residence. Accordingly, it was submitted that the design of the foundation was part of the building work for the purposes of s 12A of the BR Act. The respondents referred to numerous authorities including Mansal Pty Ltd v Brokenshire (Unreported, Supreme Court of Western Australia; 3 December 1982) and Bradshaw v McGuire WASC (FC) (Unreported, 30 April 1986).
22 As a result of issues raised by the Tribunal during the hearing, the parties were given leave to file, and subsequently did file supplementary submissions addressing the effect of a provision of the building contract to the effect that the respondents warranted that the site will support the works. The applicant's contention is that the works, the subject of the warranty, must be identified by reference to the works described in item 2 of the schedule to the contract and the obligation imposed on the applicant to complete the works in accordance with the contract (the lump sum building contract) and the drawings, plans and specifications, including all addenda and schedules to be drawn (cl 1 of the contract). Accordingly, the applicant contends that the proper construction of the contract requires that the design of the slab and footing detail be carried out with all due care, skill and attention and that, provided the applicant did so, the warranty that the site would support the
(Page 10)
- work absolves the applicant from liability in the circumstances of the case.
23 The applicant also submitted that regard could be had to a certificate of structural warranty issued by the applicant after completion of the dwelling "to interpret the circumstances surrounding the contract in order to understand the factual matrix against which the parties contracted".
24 The respondents' detailed supplementary submission was directed to supporting an overall submission that the warranty should be construed as being one on the part of the proprietor that the site would support a brick and tile residence and that the site was capable of doing so subject to a different design being used for the footings and slab.
25 I have taken into account all of the detailed and helpful submissions made by the parties and have endeavoured to do no more than summarise them above.
Considerations
26 The criteria for the grant of leave are summarised in the decision of Tangent Nominees Pty Ltd and Edwards & Anor [2005] WASAT 119. 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 would be done by leaving the decision unreversed. What is a substantial injustice depends on the circumstances of each case. Significantly, it may be that in some cases it will be sufficient to show that there is a significant question of law to be considered.
27 In Tangent, the Tribunal limited the leave to a particular ground. The Supreme Court has confirmed that it is open to the Tribunal to do so: Tangent Nominees Pty Ltd v Edwards & Anor [2006] WASC 45.
28 It is convenient to consider the first two grounds of review relied upon, together.
Grounds 1 and 2
29 The first ground is that the Disputes Tribunal erred in law finding that the design of the footings and slab was building work within the meaning of that term in s 12A of the BR Act. The second ground is that, if the design of the footings and slab is building work, the Disputes Tribunal erred in finding that the building work was not carried in a proper and workmanlike manner.
(Page 11)
30 The second ground of review is based upon the Disputes Tribunal having allegedly erred in law by failing to find that, on the uncontested evidence, the applicant could not be said to have carried out building work in anything other than a proper and workmanlike manner, and, that the applicant took every reasonable step in assessing the site and designing the footing detail and constructing the home in accordance with the plans and details.
31 Although the Disputes Tribunal posed the question whether the design was suitable or faulty for the actual conditions and answered the question by stating that the design was undeniably faulty, that formed only part of the ratio of the decision. The Disputes Tribunal went straight on from this statement to make a reference, which is understood to be to standard form contracts in the housing industry, to the effect that such contracts did not include an unforeseen physical conditions clause as "in the large commercial contracts". It is then stated that "this contract is one designed to be strongly in favour of the builder. However, it does not nor can it evade the obligation imposed by s 12A of the Builders' Registration Act to result in a building which is constructed in a proper and workmanlike manner, which means built to withstand the conditions applying to that block". The Disputes Tribunal went on to refer to an authority to the effect that the contractor had a duty to see that the finished product was reasonably fit for the purpose which was known to the contractor as being required and stated that "this house is now not reasonably fit as a dwelling place".
32 In the Disputes Tribunal's final paragraph of its reasons, it states that:
"As to liability the builder is responsible on the grounds that the original foundation material was inappropriate for a standard design of house and footings. The foundations are inadequate for their purpose of providing a stable foundation and had not been constructed in a proper and workmanlike manner."
33 While the ground of review 1 may therefore raise an interesting issue, it is not, in my view, open in the proposed review. The Disputes Tribunal did not find that the design of the footings and slab was building work; it found that constructing foundations which were inadequate to provide a stable foundation constituted the carrying out of work in a manner which was not proper and workmanlike. In any event, for the reasons which follow in the consideration of ground 2, I do not consider that a resolution of ground 1 in favour of the applicant would,
(Page 12)
- in any event, be determinative of the outcome of any review. Leave to review in respect of ground 1 is, accordingly, refused.
34 On the evidence put before the Tribunal at this stage, I accept that there is nothing to suggest that the applicant should have taken any steps, other than those which it did, in assessing the site, designing the footing detail, and constructing the home in accordance with the plans and detail. There is nothing to suggest that the footing and slab does not comply fully with the engineering drawings. But the decision of the Full Court in Bradshaw v McGuire, referred to above, is directly in point and defeats the general proposition put forward by the applicant that the carrying out of the works in accordance with the design drawings must result in a conclusion that the works were constructed in a proper and workmanlike manner.
35 That was the argument raised in Bradshaw's case, which also involved extensive cracking to walls of a building as a result of a design inadequacy in relation to the footings. It was contended by the applicant that the design of the footings was not "building work" within the meaning of s 12A(1) of the BR Act. The court found it unnecessary to make a determination in those terms. Instead Burt CJ stated:
"The expression 'building work' as used in section 12A(1) of the Act is not defined. It is, I think, a compound concrete noun. In the instant case and relevantly it is the footings as constructed or built. That work was carried out by the applicant. The work was, and it is common ground that it was, 'faulty and unsatisfactory' in that it was not capable of sustaining the weight of the building built upon it. And that conclusion is not, I think, displaced by a finding, if made, that the work was properly carried out in accordance with the design and specifications prepared by a consulting engineer engaged by the builder."
36 The decision is based not on any term of fitness for purpose implied into the building contract, but on the statutory interpretation of s 12A of the BR Act. It was the case in that matter that the Builder was responsible for the design of the footings. The above conclusion, therefore, would be determinative of the consideration of ground 2, but for the following provisions of the building contract:
(Page 13)
- "Proprietor's Warranties
7.1 The proprietor warrants that:
7.1.1 …
7.1.2 …
7.1.3 …
7.1.4 The Site will support the Works;
7.1.5 …
7.1.6 …
7.1.7 …
7.2 If the Builder has any reasonable doubts as to the boundaries of the Site or the quality of the Site to support the Works, prior to the commencement of the Works, it shall be entitled to engage any consultants necessary to satisfy the Builder of the accuracy of the boundaries and the suitability of the Site to support the Works, at the cost of the Proprietor."
37 The terms of a building contract may affect the liability of a builder under s 12A of the BR Act. The respondents' conceded in their submissions that the applicant's argument that it had carried out the work in a proper and workmanlike manner could hold good if the applicant had not been responsible for design. Subject to considerations of possible breaches of the unconscionability provisions of the HBC Act (s 15), it is prima facie open to a builder and proprietor to allocate the tasks to be undertaken by the builder and to apportion risk. Ultimately, the issue of where risk lies will impact on the price.
38 The question is whether cl 7.1.4 of the building contract has that, or some other, effect.
39 The discussion in Building and Construction Contracts in Australia by Dorter and Sharkey, 2nd ed, Law Book Co 1990 at par 4.50 4.70, reflects that such a clause is intended to effect an allocation of responsibility for site investigations and conditions encountered during construction.
(Page 14)
40 It is not apparent that the Disputes Tribunal gave consideration to the effect of cl 7.1.4. If any consideration was given to it, the Disputes Tribunal failed to deal with the matter adequately. If the statement in the reasons for decision to the effect that:
"Rightly, the contracts (understood to be a reference to residential building contracts parenthesis added) do not include an unforeseen physical conditions clause as in the large commercial contracts"
- was intended to hold that cl 7.1.4 properly construed does not affect an allocation of risk in respect of site conditions, then those reasons are inadequate to understand the rationale of that conclusion. It appears most likely that the clause was simply not considered. In any event, I consider that an argument with reasonable prospects of success is open to the effect that cl 7.1.4 excludes liability for inadequately constructed (not designed) footings, where due care and skill has been used in the design and construction thereof. Whether that argument is good must be determined in the final review of the matter. It is necessary, at this stage only, to recognise that the decision of the Disputes Tribunal is attended with a sufficient degree of doubt to warrant the grant of leave in respect of ground 2, because if the applicant's argument is made out, it is obvious that a substantial injustice would result if the decision was not reversed. In addition, the issue raises a significant question of law in relation to a standard form contract, the determination of which will clarify the effect of the contract for the benefit of future users of that, and other similar, standard form contracts.
41 This Tribunal is obliged to decide matters according to their substantial merits. By the amendment made to ground 2, it is premised upon a finding that the design of the footings and slab is building work. For the reasons given above, it is not appropriate, nor is it necessary, to determine that issue. Accordingly, I consider ground 2 should be read so as to allow the substance of the grounds advanced therein to be considered without regard to the premise stated. Leave to review the decision on this ground will be granted.
42 In these circumstances, it is not necessary to address a number of the ancillary submissions made by the parties.
(Page 15)
Ground 3
43 This ground challenges the order made by the Disputes Tribunal that the applicant "pay all costs of the Owners associated with the remedial action to be taken".
44 The parties' written submissions did not address this ground, and it was touched on but briefly by the applicant's counsel in oral submissions.
45 The order is, however, on its face, extremely wide. The reasons for decision do not touch upon the basis upon which this order was made.
46 There is power under s 38(3) of the BR Act to award costs but I do not consider that enables the Disputes Tribunal to make an order to pay an unspecified amount to reimburse a party in respect of expenditure that a party may incur as a result of the other party carrying out remedial work without a proper assessment of the claim for costs. Such costs may include the hire of material necessary for the protection of furniture, or it may have been intended to cover the cost of accommodation, so that the respondents could vacate the dwelling while remedial work was undertaken. Any such claims need to be supported by evidence, the evidence needs to be assessed and reasons for the decision reflecting the rationale of the decision must be provided. In the circumstances, I consider that the failure to provide any reasons justifying the order constitutes an error of law and that a substantial injustice would result if that aspect of the decision could also not be reviewed. Accordingly, leave to review in respect of ground 3 will be granted.
Orders
47 For the above reasons, the Tribunal orders as follows:
1. The minute of proposed amended grounds of appeal [sic] filed on 5 January 2006 stands as the amended grounds of review and further service thereof is dispensed with.
2. Leave is granted to the applicant to review the decision of the Building Disputes Tribunal reflected in Order to Remedy No 60/200506 dated 3 August 2005 in relation to grounds of review 2 and 3.
3. The costs of the application for leave, if any costs may ultimately be awarded, be reserved.
(Page 16)
48 The matter will be set down for a directions hearing in the near future in order to determine the appropriate steps to be taken to prepare the matter for hearing of the final review.
I certify that this and the preceding [48] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR C RAYMOND, SENIOR MEMBER
7
6
2