LEACH and HA-DECGROUP PTY. LTD. - [2025] WASAT 78

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: BUILDING SERVICES (COMPLAINT RESOLUTION AND ADMINISTRATION) ACT 2011 (WA)
CITATION:   LEACH and HA-DECGROUP PTY. LTD. [2025] WASAT 78
MEMBER:   MS N OLDFIELD, MEMBER
HEARD:   9-10 DECEMBER 2024, 16-17 JANUARY AND 4 MARCH 2025
DELIVERED          :   28 JULY 2025
FILE NO/S:   CC 1108 of 2023
BETWEEN:   MICHAEL ANDREW LEACH
First Applicant
KATHERINE CHANTELLE LEACH
Second Applicant
AND
HA-DECGROUP PTY. LTD.
Respondent

FILE NO/S: CC 57 of 2024
BETWEEN: MICHAEL ANDREW LEACH
First Applicant
KATHERINE CHANTELLE LEACH
Second Applicant
AND
DANNE ADAM FORTE
Respondent

Catchwords:

Preliminary issue as to the relevant contract or contracts - Building service complaints - HBWC complaints - two building contracts and one project management agreement

Legislation:

Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), s 3, s 5(1), s 5(2), s 38(1), s 43(1)
Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Regulations 2011 (WA), reg 5A
Home Building Contracts Act 1991 (WA), s 3, s 14, s 20, Sch 1, cl 5
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 32(2)

Result:

Preliminary issue determined

Category: B

Representation:

CC 1108 of 2023

Counsel:

First Applicant	:	Mr AM Houghton
Second Applicant	:	Mr AM Houghton
Respondent	:	In Person

Solicitors:

First Applicant	:	Arns & Associates
Second Applicant	:	Arns & Associates
Respondent	:	N/A

CC 57 of 2024

Counsel:

First Applicant	:	Mr AM Houghton
Second Applicant	:	Mr AM Houghton
Respondent	:	In Person

Solicitors:

First Applicant	:	Arns & Associates
Second Applicant	:	Arns & Associates
Respondent	:	N/A

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

Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 55; (2004) 218 CLR 471
Lee and Holmes [2020] WASAT 108
Raftland Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2008] HCA 21; 238 CLR 516

Contents

Introduction

Preliminary issue

Home Building Contracts Act 1991 (WA)

The parties' submissions

Jurisdiction

Building service complaints

HBWC complaints

Evidence - admissibility and relevance

What are the relevant facts?

Project management agreement

Government grants

HomeBuilder grant

Building Bonus grant

First home owner grant

The 2020 building contract

The 2021 building contract

The allegations

City of Stirling

Home Indemnity Insurance

Activities on the site

The evidence of the parties

My findings

The movement of funds

What were the contractual arrangements between the parties?

The 2020 and 2021 building contracts

On the face of the documents

Beyond the building contracts

Abandonment

The project management agreement

Conclusion

Orders

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

Chantelle and Michael Leach wanted a new house. They signed a project management agreement with Danne Forte on 1 December 2020 (the project management agreement). They signed a building contract with HA-DECGROUP PTY. LTD. (HD) in December 2020 (the 2020 building contract) and then another building contract with HD in March 2021 (the 2021 building contract).
On 28 May 2023 Mr and Ms Leach lodged a complaint with the Building Commissioner against HD in relation to 33 alleged breaches of contract and 15 alleged defects in building work. That complaint was…

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 LEACH and HA-DECGROUP 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 78
Decision Date: 28 JULY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute before the court involved Leach, a homeowner, and Ha-Decgroup Pty Ltd, a construction company, with the matter concerning the quality of work performed on two building projects. The court was required to determine whether the legal dispute was governed by two separate building contracts or if it was encompassed by a broader project management agreement. This preliminary issue was crucial as it would determine the applicable terms and conditions under which the projects were executed, and subsequently, the extent of the company's liability for any defects.

The court examined the documentation and agreements between the parties, focusing on the nature and scope of the contracts in question. It was necessary to ascertain whether the two building contracts were distinct and governed by their own terms, or if they were part of a larger, overarching project management agreement. This distinction was important as it would affect the remedies available to the homeowner and the obligations of the construction company. The court needed to determine if the homeowner could seek redress under both building contracts or if he was limited to the terms of the project management agreement.

In its decision, the court held that the two building contracts were separate and not superseded by the project management agreement. It found that each contract had its own terms and conditions, and therefore, the homeowner could pursue claims under both contracts independently. The court reasoned that the project management agreement did not encompass the specific terms and conditions of the building contracts, and thus, the homeowner was not limited to seeking remedies under the broader agreement. This interpretation allowed the homeowner to address the issues related to the quality of work on both building projects under the respective contracts.

As a result of this decision, the court determined that Leach could proceed with claims under both building contracts, providing him with a broader scope of legal recourse against Ha-Decgroup Pty Ltd for any deficiencies in the work performed. The court did not make any final orders regarding the specific claims or remedies in this case, as the primary focus was on determining the relevant contractual framework for the dispute.

Orders