MAHONY and HEPBURN SPRINGS PTY LTD
[2016] WASAT 135
•14 NOVEMBER 2016
MAHONY and HEPBURN SPRINGS PTY LTD [2016] WASAT 135
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2016] WASAT 135 | |
| BUILDING SERVICES (COMPLAINT RESOLUTION and ADMINISTRATION) ACT 2011 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CC:457/2016 | 25 JULY 2016 | |
| Coram: | MR D MACLEAN (MEMBER) MR C MARSH (SESSIONAL MEMBER) | 14/11/16 | |
| 34 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Building remedy order in the sum of $22,447 | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JULIE ANN MAHONY HEPBURN SPRINGS PTY LTD |
Catchwords: | Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA) Building service complaint Proper and proficient manner Faulty or unsatisfactory Building remedy orders Assessment of damages Burden of proof Wooden floor installation Damage Full floor replacement Damages reasonable course to adopt |
Legislation: | Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), s 11, s 36, s 38, s 38(1)(a), s38(2) |
Case References: | Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613 Cordon Investments Pty Ltd v Lesdor Properties Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 184 Penders and Penders v Jevessa Pty Ltd [2002] WADC 197 Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 236 CLR 272 Unique Building Pty Ltd v Brown [2010] SASC 106 Vulin and Bamboozle (WA) Pty Ltd T/as Bamboozle [2014] WASAT 55 |
Orders | 1. On or before 18 November 2016 the respondent must pay the applicant by way of compensation $22,447.,2. The applicant shall have liberty to apply for their costs of the proceeding, by filing with the Tribunal and giving to the respondent, on or before 25 November 2016, the following documents:,(a) a schedule of the costs claimed in sufficient detail to enable the Tribunal to assess and fix any costs which might be awarded, together with any supporting documents upon which the applicant wishes to rely; and,(b) written submissions addressing the basis upon which it is contended costs should be awarded and the quantum of costs claimed.,3. If the applicant makes an application for costs, the respondent may, on or before 9 December 2016, file with the Tribunal and give to the applicant written submissions opposing the application.,4. Subject to further order, if the applicant makes an application for costs, the Tribunal shall, after the applicant files its written submissions, or by 9 December 2016, whichever is the earlier, determine the application on the documents and if costs are awarded, shall fix the amount of such costs. |
Summary | The applicant and Mr Faulds, a director of and principal employee of the respondent were family friends of some 30 years. Mr Faulds was an experienced floor installer and floor finisher of some 35 years experience. The applicant wished to install a wooden floor in her home and engaged the respondent to install 100 square meters of hardwood timber in her home. The applicant asserted that the agreement was for the respondent to supply and install the floor for approximately $14,500. The respondent asserted that the agreement was that it would install, sand and finish the timber and install 100 square meters of beading for $8,700. The applicant paid $5,000 to the respondent toward the cost of the building service. According to the respondent the agreement did not include the supply of timber.,The respondent asserted that the timber was delivered with a moisture content certificate. The applicant asserted that no moisture content certificate was provided.,The applicant paid $6,500 to the timber supplier direct for the timber and the respondent delivered the timber to the applicant's home in February 2015. The timber was stored outside of the applicant's home for about a week. The respondent installed the timber commencing in February 2015 and completing the installation in March 2015. In addition to the work which was the subject of the quote, the respondent was asked to do some further minor work for the applicant. ,The applicant was initially very pleased with the installation but her pleasure was short lived. The applicant noticed inconsistency in the sanding and application of varnish to the flooring and noted damage to her walls and items of property. The applicant contacted the respondent and Mr Faulds attended to undertake some repair work, including to clean up blood stains left when Mr Faulds cut himself performing the works. Later the applicant discovered rain had entered the house through a window that had been left open, in a room where varnish over the blood stained area was to dry. Within weeks of the installation the applicant noted that the floor was cupping and lifting. According to the applicant, the flooring that had been 'flat and nice' commenced to lift and continued to do so. The applicant engaged an expert, Brad Marston, who inspected the work on 31 May 2015 and provided a report. A copy of the report was provided to the respondent who learnt, on reading it, that the surface of the floor where the installation had taken place had Bondcrete applied to it. ,The applicant gave notice of a proposed complaint to the Building Commission in which she advised that she sought the flooring to be pulled up and relaid, sanded and polished. The applicant commenced a complaint to the Building Commission alleging that 'all flooring has buckled and is getting worse'. The applicant invited the respondent to view the flooring. The applicant later included another item of complaint alleging that the respondent had damaged her house, including furniture, walls, door frames and patio area rugs, such damage being said to be caused by the respondent's poor workmanship. Mr Faulds informed the Building Commission in October 2015 that due to health reasons he would not carry out remedial work himself and that the respondent was to be wound up. ,The applicant received $9,000 compensation for damage to a part of the flooring that was unrelated to the performance of the works by the respondent.,In January 2016 the applicant removed all of the flooring which had been installed by the respondent and tiling was installed throughout the premises.,The Building Commission referred the application to the Tribunal for determination. The applicant sought a building remedy order for payment of compensation for the failure of the respondent to carry out the building service in a proper and proficient manner or for faulty or unsatisfactory building work. The applicant gave evidence that the flooring continued to lift following the inspection by the expert. Mr Marston, the expert called by the applicant, gave evidence that the floor was buckling randomly all over the areas and the floor was expected to continue to lift after the report and that removing a part of the flooring, in order to stop the lifting, might have a snowball effect causing more loosening of the flooring throughout the installation.,The respondent denied responsibility for the defects that appeared in the flooring and for the damage sustained to the applicant's property. The respondent called an expert, Paul Kiely, who was an industry accredited floor inspector and who had more than 40 years direct experience in the timber flooring industry. Mr Kiely gave evidence that, on the basis of Mr Marston's report, full timber removal was not required. He also gave evidence of a rule of practice that the flooring should not be removed unless there was greater than 50% damage to the floor that it was not considered viable. The respondent alleged that the applicant should have informed it that Bondcrete had been applied to the surface of the floor and also that the applicant had declined to have the slab ground back. The respondent asserted that the applicant could not establish its liability to the applicant for the claims on the balance of probabilities. Further, the respondent claimed that the applicant's conduct in removing the timber flooring was not justified and that it was not provided with an opportunity to rectify the work. The respondent argued that the applicant should not receive the replacement cost of removing and installing a new timber flooring as compensation for the claim. The respondent contended that the proper measure of damages was limited to the amount that had been paid by the applicant to the respondent under the agreement. ,The Tribunal found that the agreement between the parties included the supply as well as the installation of the timber flooring and that the agreed price was for the amount of $14,500 of which $11,500 had been paid. The Tribunal found that the building service, namely the installation of the floor, was not carried out in a proper and proficient manner and that there was extensive damage to the entirety of the installation such that the applicant was justified in commencing the proceedings and in removing the timber flooring and replacing it. The Tribunal also found that the damage to the applicant's property was caused by the respondent when installing the timber floor and that his conduct in damaging the applicant's property was faulty and unsatisfactory. The Tribunal considered that the measure of damages is that in Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 236 CLR 272, namely the ruling principle used to calculate the quantum of damages for failure to carry out the building service in a proper and proficient manner, or for faulty or unsatisfactory building work, is to put the applicant in the same position, so far as money can do it, as if the contract had been performed. The Tribunal found that evidence established that the cost of providing the building service was in the sum of $27,940 but that this amount should be reduced by $9,000 being the amount of the proceeds received from the insurance claim, and by a further amount of $3,000 being the amount outstanding under the agreement between the parties for the installation of the flooring. With regard to the damage caused to the applicant's property by the faulty or unsatisfactory installation of the timber flooring, the Tribunal was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the evidence established that this damage was in the sum of $6,507. Accordingly, the Tribunal ordered a building remedy order in the sum of $22,447. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : BUILDING SERVICES (COMPLAINT RESOLUTION and ADMINISTRATION) ACT 2011 (WA) CITATION : MAHONY and HEPBURN SPRINGS PTY LTD [2016] WASAT 135 MEMBER : MR D MACLEAN (MEMBER)
- MR C MARSH (SESSIONAL MEMBER)
- Applicant
AND
HEPBURN SPRINGS PTY LTD
Respondent
Catchwords:
Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA) - Building service complaint - Proper and proficient manner - Faulty or unsatisfactory - Building remedy orders - Assessment of damages - Burden of proof - Wooden floor installation - Damage - Full floor replacement - Damages reasonable course to adopt
Legislation:
Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), s 11, s 36, s 38, s 38(1)(a), s38(2)
Result:
Building remedy order in the sum of $22,447
Summary of Tribunal's decision:
The applicant and Mr Faulds, a director of and principal employee of the respondent were family friends of some 30 years. Mr Faulds was an experienced floor installer and floor finisher of some 35 years experience. The applicant wished to install a wooden floor in her home and engaged the respondent to install 100 square meters of hardwood timber in her home. The applicant asserted that the agreement was for the respondent to supply and install the floor for approximately $14,500. The respondent asserted that the agreement was that it would install, sand and finish the timber and install 100 square meters of beading for $8,700. The applicant paid $5,000 to the respondent toward the cost of the building service. According to the respondent the agreement did not include the supply of timber.
The respondent asserted that the timber was delivered with a moisture content certificate. The applicant asserted that no moisture content certificate was provided.
The applicant paid $6,500 to the timber supplier direct for the timber and the respondent delivered the timber to the applicant's home in February 2015. The timber was stored outside of the applicant's home for about a week. The respondent installed the timber commencing in February 2015 and completing the installation in March 2015. In addition to the work which was the subject of the quote, the respondent was asked to do some further minor work for the applicant.
The applicant was initially very pleased with the installation but her pleasure was short lived. The applicant noticed inconsistency in the sanding and application of varnish to the flooring and noted damage to her walls and items of property. The applicant contacted the respondent and Mr Faulds attended to undertake some repair work, including to clean up blood stains left when Mr Faulds cut himself performing the works. Later the applicant discovered rain had entered the house through a window that had been left open, in a room where varnish over the blood stained area was to dry. Within weeks of the installation the applicant noted that the floor was cupping and lifting. According to the applicant, the flooring that had been 'flat and nice' commenced to lift and continued to do so. The applicant engaged an expert, Brad Marston, who inspected the work on 31 May 2015 and provided a report. A copy of the report was provided to the respondent who learnt, on reading it, that the surface of the floor where the installation had taken place had Bondcrete applied to it.
The applicant gave notice of a proposed complaint to the Building Commission in which she advised that she sought the flooring to be pulled up and relaid, sanded and polished. The applicant commenced a complaint to the Building Commission alleging that 'all flooring has buckled and is getting worse'. The applicant invited the respondent to view the flooring. The applicant later included another item of complaint alleging that the respondent had damaged her house, including furniture, walls, door frames and patio area rugs, such damage being said to be caused by the respondent's poor workmanship. Mr Faulds informed the Building Commission in October 2015 that due to health reasons he would not carry out remedial work himself and that the respondent was to be wound up.
The applicant received $9,000 compensation for damage to a part of the flooring that was unrelated to the performance of the works by the respondent.
In January 2016 the applicant removed all of the flooring which had been installed by the respondent and tiling was installed throughout the premises.
The Building Commission referred the application to the Tribunal for determination. The applicant sought a building remedy order for payment of compensation for the failure of the respondent to carry out the building service in a proper and proficient manner or for faulty or unsatisfactory building work. The applicant gave evidence that the flooring continued to lift following the inspection by the expert. Mr Marston, the expert called by the applicant, gave evidence that the floor was buckling randomly all over the areas and the floor was expected to continue to lift after the report and that removing a part of the flooring, in order to stop the lifting, might have a snowball effect causing more loosening of the flooring throughout the installation.
The respondent denied responsibility for the defects that appeared in the flooring and for the damage sustained to the applicant's property. The respondent called an expert, Paul Kiely, who was an industry accredited floor inspector and who had more than 40 years direct experience in the timber flooring industry. Mr Kiely gave evidence that, on the basis of Mr Marston's report, full timber removal was not required. He also gave evidence of a rule of practice that the flooring should not be removed unless there was greater than 50% damage to the floor that it was not considered viable. The respondent alleged that the applicant should have informed it that Bondcrete had been applied to the surface of the floor and also that the applicant had declined to have the slab ground back. The respondent asserted that the applicant could not establish its liability to the applicant for the claims on the balance of probabilities. Further, the respondent claimed that the applicant's conduct in removing the timber flooring was not justified and that it was not provided with an opportunity to rectify the work. The respondent argued that the applicant should not receive the replacement cost of removing and installing a new timber flooring as compensation for the claim. The respondent contended that the proper measure of damages was limited to the amount that had been paid by the applicant to the respondent under the agreement.
The Tribunal found that the agreement between the parties included the supply as well as the installation of the timber flooring and that the agreed price was for the amount of $14,500 of which $11,500 had been paid. The Tribunal found that the building service, namely the installation of the floor, was not carried out in a proper and proficient manner and that there was extensive damage to the entirety of the installation such that the applicant was justified in commencing the proceedings and in removing the timber flooring and replacing it. The Tribunal also found that the damage to the applicant's property was caused by the respondent when installing the timber floor and that his conduct in damaging the applicant's property was faulty and unsatisfactory. The Tribunal considered that the measure of damages is that in Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 236 CLR 272, namely the ruling principle used to calculate the quantum of damages for failure to carry out the building service in a proper and proficient manner, or for faulty or unsatisfactory building work, is to put the applicant in the same position, so far as money can do it, as if the contract had been performed. The Tribunal found that evidence established that the cost of providing the building service was in the sum of $27,940 but that this amount should be reduced by $9,000 being the amount of the proceeds received from the insurance claim, and by a further amount of $3,000 being the amount outstanding under the agreement between the parties for the installation of the flooring. With regard to the damage caused to the applicant's property by the faulty or unsatisfactory installation of the timber flooring, the Tribunal was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the evidence established that this damage was in the sum of $6,507. Accordingly, the Tribunal ordered a building remedy order in the sum of $22,447.
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : In Person
Respondent : Mr N Grozotis
Solicitors:
Applicant : N/A
Respondent : Searle Construction Lawyers
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613
Cordon Investments Pty Ltd v Lesdor Properties Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 184
Penders and Penders v Jevessa Pty Ltd [2002] WADC 197
Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 236 CLR 272
Unique Building Pty Ltd v Brown [2010] SASC 106
Vulin and Bamboozle (WA) Pty Ltd T/as Bamboozle [2014] WASAT 55
Introduction
1 The applicant made a building complaint to the Building Commission by a complaint dated 28 June 2015 and received by the Building Commission on 25 August 2015.
2 The application was referred to the Tribunal for determination pursuant to s 11 of the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA) (BSCRA Act).
3 The Tribunal accepted the application under s 38 of the BSCRA Act.
4 Section 38(1)(a) provides that if the Building Commissioner refers a 'building service complaint' to the Tribunal:
(a) if the Tribunal is satisfied that the regulated building service that is the subject of the building service complaint has not been carried out in a proper and proficient manner or is faulty or unsatisfactory, [the Tribunal may] deal with the building service complaint by making a building remedy order.
5 It can be seen that this provision distinguishes between two bases on which the Tribunal might be satisfied that a regulated building service might, if it has been the subject of a building service complaint, be dealt with by way of a building remedy order. These are if the regulated building service has not been carried out in a proper and proficient manner or if the regulated building service is faulty or unsatisfactory.
6 Section 38(2) of the BSCRA Act provides a limitation on the capacity to make a building remedy order against a respondent who is not a registered building services provider. It was not in issue that the respondent was a 'registered building services provider'.
7 Section 36 of the BSCRA Act defines a building remedy order. There are three possible building remedy orders under the BSCRA Act, namely:
a) an order to remedy the building service;
b) an order to pay such costs of remedying the building service as the Tribunal considers reasonable and specifies in the order; and
c) an order to pay a sum of money specified in the order to compensate the aggrieved person for the failure to carry out the building service in a proper and proficient manner or for faulty or unsatisfactory building work.
8 To make a building remedy order, the Tribunal must be satisfied that:
1) there was a regulated building service;
2) the building service was the subject of a building service complaint; and
3) the building service was not carried out in a proper and proficient manner or was faulty or unsatisfactory.
9 The burden of establishing these elements, and either basis on which the respondent may be liable to respond to a building remedy order, rests upon the applicant. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
10 If these elements are established, and if the respondent is a registered building services provider, then it is for the Tribunal to consider whether it should deal with the building service complaint by making a building remedy order. If this point is reached, the Tribunal may make a building remedy order.
11 The applicant made two complaints. These complaints were that:
All flooring had buckled and was getting worse.
This complaint was made on 28 June 2015 and it appears at Hearing Book page 4;
and subsequently on 23 September 2015 an additional item described as:
… damage to our house including furniture[,] [w]alls door frames and patio area … new furniture and patio area rugs walls and door frames are damaged due to their bad workmanship … The house had been newly painted and will have to be redone and we will have to replace the outdoor setting. We got rid of the outdoor mat that he did his work on and is beyond repair[.]
Hearing Book page 112, Building Commission correspondence dated 12 January 2016.
12 The applicant's claim was said to be for about $30,000. The applicant clarified, when she gave evidence, that the total of her claim was to be reduced by $9,000, which reflected a discount by reason of the proceeds of an insurance claim for unrelated damage to a part of the flooring that was installed by the respondent. The claim was specified in accordance with order 1 of the orders made by the Tribunal on 3 May 2016, as set out in Hearing Book pages 82 88, and comprised of:
Complaint 1
13 The applicant obtained two quotes. These were:
a) a quote from Jeff's Timber Flooring dated 17 May 2016 and appearing in the sum of $27,940 (Hearing Book page 85); and
b) a quote from Maincom Services dated 12 January 2016 and appearing in the sum of $36,874 (Hearing Book page 86).
- As noted earlier, the applicant conceded that these figures fell to be adjusted by reason of the insurance claim. The requirement for adjustment was disclosed in the applicant's materials, (Hearing Book page 167) and the adjustment was quantified by the applicant in her evidence before the Tribunal as being $9000.
The disclosure in the Hearing Book was in terms:
… During this time 33[m²] of flooring in the top level was compensated to me through my insurance so the quotes I have received for the whole flooring will be adjusted accordingly. I attempted to have the whole flooring compensated in the whole house through the insurance but it was continually knocked back because only two areas out of the whole flooring where [sic] near the wet areas and if the water damage was the cause of those areas that would be the only things covered.
14 Was comprised of a rug, cushions, cleaning and painting. The applicant obtained one quote for the replacement costs of the cushions, two quotes for cleaning and two quotes for the painting. These were:
a) a quote for $814 in respect of the damaged cushions (Hearing Book page 82);
b) a quote for cleaning the external and internal areas from Richard Smith dated 30 May 2016 in the amount of $1,936 (Hearing Book page 83);
c) a second quote for cleaning the external and internal areas from Alex's Concreting Services dated 25 May 2016 in the amount of $1,810 (Hearing Book page 84);
d) a quote for painting from Hendersons Painting & Decorating in the sum of $4,345; which includes interior doors and frames (Hearing Book pages 87 and 107); and
e) a second quote for painting from Bouvard Painting & Decorating dated 21 January 2016 in the sum of $3,883 (Hearing Book page 88). There was an earlier quote from Bouvard but this later quote supersedes it.
f) an amount of $200 was said to be claimed for the rug (Hearing Book page 52). No quote was tended in respect of this item.
15 The issues before the Tribunal were whether:
1) there were defects in the flooring and, if so, were the defects caused by the respondent's failure to carry out the building service in a proper and proficient manner or whether the building work was faulty or unsatisfactory;
2) the applicant was justified in removing the entire floor or whether if, as she was obliged to do, to mitigate her loss, should the defects have been rectified by partial replacement and repair;
3) the respondent was denied the opportunity to inspect and repair the installation;
4) the first complaint was established and what was the appropriate measure of damages;
5) the applicant's claim for compensation arising from damage to the house and furniture, specifically for damage to new furniture and patio area rugs, walls and door frames in the front entrance was damaged, by reason of the respondent's failure to carry out the building service in a proper and proficient manner or which was otherwise faulty or unsatisfactory; and
6) the second complaint, if established, was brought in the correct forum.
16 Further issues arising were disputes as to:
i) which of the parties was responsible for sourcing the wood that was used as the flooring;
ii) whether the slab should have been ground back; and whether the applicant was advised of this or did she decline it;
iii) the presence of Bondcrete on the floor; whether the respondent should have seen that this had been applied or did the applicant have a duty to inform the respondent that it had been applied;
iv) whether the timber was covered when it was delivered to the applicant; and
v) whether a moisture content certificate was given upon delivery of the timber.
Applicant's case
17 By way of summary, the applicant's case essentially was that she contracted with the respondent to provide and install 100m² of flooring to her home. Her evidence was that the cost of the service was in the order of $14,000 and that she relied entirely on the respondent to competently source and install the flooring. The applicant's case was that the respondent failed to properly install the flooring and that, soon after it was installed, it commenced to buckle and lift throughout the installation later creating a danger to the occupants of the household. In spite of efforts to further secure the boards to the floor, including removing some pieces of the timber which was installed, the buckling continued and later the applicant, following the institution of proceedings before the Building Commission and obtaining an expert report from Australian Timber Flooring Association (ATFA), removed the entire floor.
18 The applicant's case was that the respondent, in the course of undertaking the building service, caused damage to other parts of the applicant's property including a rug, the walls, a couch and a door handle and the applicant contended, excepting the door handle, that the damage to these items were also compensable by way of a building remedy order.
19 The applicant conceded that there was some damage to the flooring occasioned by water damage, but that the flooring was damaged in any event by reason of the respondent's faulty installation. The damage to the flooring, which was caused by the water damage, was the subject of separate compensation in the sum of $9,000 being the proceeds of an insurance claim.
Respondent's case
20 By way of summary, the respondent's case was that he contracted with the applicant to provide 100m² of timber flooring for the amount of $8,700. The respondent contended that the applicant was responsible for sourcing the timber that was to be used for the flooring. The respondent asserted that the existing floor was unsuitable for the installation in that it should have been ground back and that he informed the applicant of this. The respondent inferred by the applicant's declinature of the advice to grind back the flooring, that she did not have the funds to undertake this exercise. The respondent also asserted that at the time of the installation he was unaware that Bondcrete had been applied to the flooring and that this impacted upon the installation by acting to prevent the flooring from being secured. The respondent's contention was that the applicant ought to have informed him that Bondcrete had been applied to the flooring.
21 The respondent denied that the building service was not carried out in a proper and proficient manner, or was faulty or unsatisfactory, and ascribed responsibility for any defects in the flooring to the applicant. The respondent further contended that the applicant's conduct in removing the entirety of the flooring was unjustified and not supported by the expert evidence obtained by the applicant.
22 The respondent denied that he was responsible for damage to the property, which was the subject of complaint 2. His case was that he had to work around the applicant, who remained living in the house and who should have taken steps to protect her property and further that there were later trades working in the premises and that the Tribunal could not be satisfied that the property was not damaged by one of those later trades.
The evidence
23 The Tribunal received as Exhibit 1, the Hearing Book prepared for this hearing, together with supplementary documents by way of aids to the Hearing Book, namely, a series of comments made by the applicant which appear at pages 146 171 of the Hearing Book, but which were not set out in full in the Hearing Book, and a series of photographs that appeared in the Hearing Book but which were of a poorer quality than those which were received as an aid to it.
24 In addition to the material received by the Tribunal in the Hearing Book and supplementary documents the following witnesses gave evidence:
1) for the applicant -
a) Ms Julie Ann Mahony, the applicant; and
b) Mr Brett Marston, an expert who was an accredited ATFA inspector and the author of the ATFA Inspection Report dated 9 June 2105 (ATFA Report);
2) for the respondent -
a) Mr Paul Kiely, an ATFA accredited inspector and an expert with 40 years' experience in the timber industry; and
b) Mr Barry Faulds, the sole director of the respondent and the person who carried out the building services that were the subject of the complaints against the respondent.
26 The respondent's case was that the agreement was that the applicant would pay the sum of $8,700 (Hearing Book page 181) and that the applicant was responsible for supplying the timber flooring. The respondent contended that the applicant owed her some $3,700 which was the outstanding balance in respect of the contract price. The applicant's evidence was that she paid $11,500 toward the building service to be undertaken by the respondent. This sum includes the $6,500 that the applicant paid direct to the supplier of the timber, at the respondent's request.
27 The applicant's evidence was that she paid for the supply of the timber by paying the timber supplier's wife in two cash instalments at a shopping centre. The payments totalled $6,500. The respondent delivered the timber to the applicant's home in February 2015 and left it outside of the home. There was disagreement between the parties as to whether the timber was covered. The Tribunal does not consider that anything turns on whether the timber was covered at the time that it was delivered.
28 The timber floor was installed in March 2015. Immediately the applicant noticed defects with regard to the quality and consistency of the varnish applied to the installation and also saw that there was a blood stain on part of the timber floor. The respondent attended and did some minor works including revarnishing the area where the blood stain was. The respondent left the window open near that area so that the varnish would dry. Unfortunately it rained shortly after and water came into the house where the varnish was to dry.
29 Later, after initially being pleased with the installation as being all 'flat and nice', the applicant saw that there were obvious defects with the flooring which included the flooring lifting and cupping. The applicant's evidence was that these defects continued to emerge throughout the installation.
30 The applicant engaged ATFA to inspect the flooring. Mr Marston inspected the installation on 31 May 2015 and prepared the ATFA report which was included in the Hearing Book at pages 7 16.
31 By a notice of proposed complaint dated 6 July 2015 (Hearing Book page 6) the applicant alleged:
All floors are buckled. Every board has lipped and the finish on all of the floors is very poor.
32 The ATFA report included Mr Marston's view that:
From information provided and evidence taken during the inspection process as above, it is considered that the main factors contributing to the floor's current performance and appearance are:
• The supplied flooring having lower moisture content then it would be expected to attain in the dwelling's location and expected inservice conditions.
• Timber moisture contents not taken prior to installation in order to appropriately assess preinstallation considerations such as acclimatisation or allowance for post installation expansion in this case by other means such as intermediate expansion allowances.
• The owner indicated that bondcrete had been previously applied to the concrete subfloor to reduce the concrete dust after the completion of the build. Without adequate floor preparation to remove the bondcrete from the concrete subfloor, the potential for adhesive failure is high as bondcrete can act as a release agent to polyurethane adhesives.
• Expansion forces of the flooring on the possibly compromised adhesive bond while transitioning to the [equilibrium moisture content] of the dwelling.
(Hearing Book page 15)
34 The applicant's case was that the Tribunal should be satisfied that:
a) the respondent provided a regulated building service and that service was the subject of a building service complaint;
b) that the regulated building service had not been carried out in a proper and proficient manner or was faulty or unsatisfactory;
c) that the Tribunal should deal with the building service complaint by making a building remedy order; and.
d) the building remedy order should be by way of an order to pay a specified sum of money.
35 With regard to the floor buckling under complaint 1, the respondent denied responsibility for this and raised a potential of water damage, unrelated to the building service performed, to the floor near the master bedroom ensuite as being an issue that the applicant was not able to discharge the burden of establishing that the respondent failed to carry out the work in a proper and proficient manner, or that it was faulty or unsatisfactory.
36 The respondent did not accept that the building service had not been carried out in a proper and proficient manner, or was faulty or unsatisfactory, and asserted, correctly, that responsibility for establishing this remained with the applicant.
37 In support of this contention, the respondent denied that any consequence could be visited upon it for the decision to place the timber outside of the home. Mr Marston considered this storage practice as not good industry practice. However, he considered that the floor would still have presented with post installation expansion concerns, notwithstanding its storage outside (Hearing Book page 14). The effect of both expert witnesses' evidence was consistent in that best practice would have been to store the timber inside the house. The respondent also contended that it was not aware that Bondcrete had been applied to the concrete subfloor and that the applicant had an obligation to inform it of this. This later assertion also conflicted with the expert's evidence. The respondent asserted that the applicant's financial circumstances were such that she did not wish to grind the slab back and there was moisture damage on the top floor, unrelated to the respondent's performance of the works, in respect of which the applicant had made an insurance claim and had received compensation, that the amount of compensation, $9,000, ought to be discounted from any building remedy order and the applicant could not, in any event, establish that either the building service had not been carried out in a proper and proficient manner, or that it was faulty or unsatisfactory.
38 The contention that the compensation previously received by the applicant ought to be discounted from any award in respect of where the flooring was installed by the respondent and said to be defective was not contested by the applicant. Prior to the hearing, the respondent sought leave from the Tribunal to issue a summons producing 'any insurance documents relevant to or related to the works subject of the applicant's claim'. The Tribunal declined to issue the summons. However, the applicant gave evidence that she did not have an objection to producing the documents requested. This in particular, together with the applicant's disclosure of the claim in her papers and evidence that the quantum of her claim should be adjusted to take into account the insurance paid, impressed the Tribunal with regard to its assessment of the veracity of the applicant's credit and also underscores the desirability of the parties communicating with each other, prior to a hearing, to discuss and resolve issues rather than seeking the coercive powers of the Tribunal to compel the production of documents.
39 As an alternative to the respondent's denial of responsibility for complaint 1, the respondent's position was that even if the applicant could establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the works had not been carried out in a proper and proficient manner, or that it was faulty or unsatisfactory, that the applicant failed to mitigate its loss and that the reasonable course would have been to undertake remedial work to correct any defective work to the floor and that the applicant was not justified in removing the entire floor.
40 The respondent placed emphasis on the ATFA Report, in particular, to a conclusion at page 10 of that report which was in terms of:
As such it is considered that remedial work is necessary to correct the current issues with the floor. In similar instances remedial options have been limited due to the loss of adhesion of the flooring to the concrete subfloor to numerous areas that are now significantly compromised. Note that although adhesive or coating injection is used to remedy some hollow sounding floors it is not considered to be an adequate remedy with this floor due to the extent of the compromised flooring. Consideration also needs to be given to the availability of new product in order to repair areas requiring replacement, along with consideration given to the appropriate acclimatisation of the moisture content of the new product prior to repair. If this is achievable, the remaining distortion to the existing flooring along with the newly replaced flooring would require sanding and finishing in order to remedy the remaining cupped appearance. If this is unachievable, full floor replacement may need to be considered.
41 It can be seen that the ATFA Report did not shut out full floor replacement as a potential remedy.
42 The ATFA report was prepared following an inspection on 31 May 2015. The floor was removed in January 2016. Mr Marston's evidence was that more delamination could be expected to occur in the months following on from his inspection. The AFTA report could not represent the final word on the position of the flooring. The AFTA report, on which the respondent placed considerable reliance, recorded the expert's assessment of the flooring at the time that he inspected it. The ground on which the report was based continued to shift with the passage of time. This shift was perceptible to the applicant who gave clear evidence as to the continuing manifestation of the shift which resulted in the applicant having to cut the floorboards in the lounge area so that the occupants of the house could walk through the house without trip hazards rising in the beading caused by the warped floorboards, not being able to place the couch together in the lounge room because of the rise in the floorboards, graphically depicted in Hearing Book page 138, along with dangerously lifted floorboards in the kitchen. The applicant also discovered floorboards at the entrance of her home which demonstrated, by the glue and nails that had been applied to them in an attempt to restrain them to the floor, the respondent's failure to carry out the installation of the floor in a proper and proficient manner. The AFTA report addressed this part of the flooring in terms:
A small raised section of flooring in the entry was observed to have a cluster of supplementary nailing along the raised board edges rather than the centre of the boards as elsewhere in the installation. When considering the minimal amount of nails used in the floor and the centre position of the nails, it is considered that this section of floor had raised or lifted prior to the commencement or completion of the sanding and finishing with the nailing an attempt to restrain the flooring from further lifting. It is also noted through discussions with the owner that this area was installed near the beginning of the installation and thus had more time to absorb or release moisture from the environmental conditions prior to sanding and finishing works.
43 The applicant's evidence was that the further deterioration of the respondent's work became acute after the AFTA report.
44 The respondent also referred the Tribunal to the decision in Penders and Penders v Jevessa Pty Ltd [2002] WADC 197 (Penders) which it said was an authority for the proposition that a full floor replacement ought only be undertaken where it had been established that there were extensive defects to at least 50% of the floor.
45 The Tribunal does not agree that Penders is an authority for this proposition. Her Honour Judge French, at [20] in Penders, found as a fact in that case:
I am satisfied that the defects apparent in the timber floor are so extensive that the only solution is to remove the entire floor and replace it. I accept the evidence of the plaintiffs that the areas of drumminess or delamination are present throughout the flooring and to an extent of more than 50 per cent of the total area. …
46 The finding of fact by French DCJ in that case is not the same as the case being an authority for the proposition which the respondent argued; namely that full floor replacement ought only be undertaken where at least 50% of the floor was defective.
47 Mr Paul Kiely, an industry accredited timber flooring inspector, gave evidence that there was an unwritten rule in the industry that if there was 50% damage to the flooring that it was not considered viable. However, the applicant's case does not stand or fall on the existence or otherwise of what is described as an unwritten rule. The true question is whether, in the circumstances of this application, the defects were so extensive that the only reasonable solution was to remove the entire floor and to replace it. Notwithstanding Mr Kiely's expertise the applicant gave direct evidence as to the condition of the floor in the period following the ATFA report.
48 The conclusion in the AFTA report does not support the respondent's case. Rather, in the view of the Tribunal, the report supports the applicant's case. Namely, it expressed a view that remedial work was necessary to correct the current issues with the floor. It also commented that in similar instances remedial options had been limited due to the loss of adhesion of the flooring. It also noted that adhesive of coating injection is used to remedy some hollow sounding floors and that it was not considered to be an adequate remedy with this floor. The report suggested a hypothesis in which full floor replacement might be avoided. It did not advocate for that position or suggest that in this case it could be.
49 Further, Mr Marston gave evidence that it was not open to place a percentage on what area of the floor should be defective in order to justify a full floor replacement. Mr Marston's evidence was that from the time that the floor was inspected, it was fair to assume that there would be more expansion in the timber and that more delamination would occur. Mr Marston also considered that the floor was buckling randomly over all of the areas and that there was no indication of a major leak in the house that was causing the delamination. His evidence was that, as an installer, he would not have to be told if something such as Bondcrete had been applied to the concrete and that it was very important to store the timber inside the house prior to its installation. Mr Marston also gave evidence that removing part of the flooring might have a snowball effect in that it could impact on the remaining flooring.
50 In any event, the Tribunal is not bound by the ATFA report or Mr Kiely's evidence. It is for the Tribunal to assess the expert evidence and to consider whether it accepts the evidence in whole, or in part, or at all and to reach its own conclusion as to whether the defects in the floor installed by the respondent were so extensive that it was reasonable for the applicant to remove it.
51 The respondent contended that the applicant's case must fail because it could not establish that the building service was not carried out in a proper and proficient manner or was faulty or unsatisfactory and, as an alternative proposition, argued that the quantum sought by the applicant was beyond that which the Tribunal should specify, even if it were persuaded to make an order because:
a) the applicant had made and received by reason of making an insurance claim; and
b) the applicant had not afforded the respondent an opportunity to rectify the work.
52 Further, and in addition to these arguments, the respondent contended that the applicant's measure of contractual damages was to put the applicant in the position as if the contract were performed and in this instance, the applicant's compensation was limited to the value of the contract, namely an award of $5,000 being the amount paid to the respondent in an agreement with a value of $8,700.
53 The respondent's response to complaint 2 was:
a) to deny that the damage was caused by reason of a failure to carry out the building service in a proper and proficient manner or that it was caused by faulty or unsatisfactory work in the provision of the building service; and
b) even if the damage was established and was caused by its failure, that it was not within the Tribunal's capacity to make a building remedy order in respect of this complaint as it was brought to the wrong forum.
54 The resolution of compliant 2 required consideration of whether the damage was sustained and how it was caused to the new furniture, patio area rugs, walls and door frames and whether the applicant was able to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the damage was caused by the respondent in performing work that was not carried out in a proper and proficient manner or was faulty or unsatisfactory.
55 It was common ground that the applicant and her partner had previously painted the house themselves prior to the respondent undertaking the work.
56 The applicant tendered photographs which depicted damage to the outdoor setting. The photographs showed wood glue on the cushions. The applicant removed glue from part of the setting but was not able to do so from the cushions. The photographs also showed glue splatter to the walls, which the applicant had painted, and painted at Mr Faulds suggestion prior to the installation of the timber flooring, in order that the flooring would not be damaged from paint residue and splatter from the painting of the walls.
57 The Tribunal was impressed by the applicant's photographs and the evidence that she gave with regard to them. The applicant gave evidence that she tried to mitigate the damage. For instance, she sought and acted on advice from Mr Faulds as to how to clean glue off the cushion. Unfortunately the consequence of relying on that advice only served to aggravate the damage. The applicant also sought to mitigate the damage by cleaning the outdoor setting.
58 The respondent contended that the photographs, relied on by the applicant and referred to previously, were not date stamped and the Tribunal could not be satisfied that the photographs were not taken earlier than the date alleged, and at a time following the applicant painting her house herself, and at a time that was either before the time that the respondent had undertaken the work, or at a time that was before the time that the respondent had completed the work, including attending to rectify the work.
59 In closing submissions the respondent asserted that the photographs might have depicted damage caused by other trades to the property. In spite of the apparent contradiction between the respondent's positions as to the possible timing of the taking of the photographs (the later trades attended after the installation of the flooring), the Tribunal accepts that the submission was made to impress upon the Tribunal the obligation of the applicant to prove her case.
60 The respondent's position was that the Tribunal could not be satisfied that the photographs were taken when the applicant claimed to have taken them and, that if the Tribunal properly applied the burden of proof, that it should not be satisfied that they depicted damage to the property caused by the respondent.
61 The Tribunal agrees that the photographs are not date stamped and accepts that the applicant bears the responsibility of establishing, on the balance of probabilities, that the photographs were taken after the respondent undertook the building service and further bears the onus of establishing that the photographs do depict the works or consequences of the respondent's works at the premises.
Findings
62 The Tribunal does accept that the photographs were taken on either the 21 or 23 September 2015 and does accept that they depict the work undertaken by the respondent and the aftermath of that work by way of showing damage to the applicant's property. The Tribunal accepts the applicant's evidence and carefully considered her evidence and finds that it was credible. The Tribunal accepts that the photographs were not date stamped but refers to the Hearing Book, which was tendered by the parties' agreement as an exhibit, and notes that the photographs (Hearing Book pages 17 43), were submitted to the Building Commission on 21 September 2015. The Tribunal finds that it is entirely consistent that a person who was engaged in making a complaint might take photographs of the areas in respect of which the complaints were being made. The Tribunal considers that it is entirely consistent with the conduct of a person who felt aggrieved by reason of a building service that they considered was defective and which they considered had caused damage to their property to make a complaint to an investigative body such as the Building Commission and that they might also take photographs of the areas and items to which the complaints related in order that they might pursue those complaints. The Tribunal rejects the respondent's contentions with regard to the timing of the photographs and with regard to the issue of whether or not they depicted the work undertaken by the respondent or the damage to the applicant's property following that work.
63 The Tribunal considered the evidence of the applicant carefully and was mindful of her obligation to prove her case on the balance of probabilities. The Tribunal found that the applicant was an impressive witness and was satisfied that her evidence was accurate and reliable. In significant respects the applicant's evidence conflicted with the respondent's evidence. The Tribunal accepts the applicant's evidence where it conflicts with the evidence given by the respondent, Mr Faulds.
64 In particular the Tribunal finds:
1. That the contract price was in the sum of $14,500.
2. The applicant paid the amount of $11,500 toward the contract price either directly to the respondent or at its direction.
3. Mr Faulds undertook to obtain the timber and did so.
4. Mr Faulds did not cover the timber and did not provide a moisture certificate for the timber.
65 In finding that the contract price was in the amount of $14,500 and that the applicant was not herself responsible for providing the timber and did not agree to do so, the Tribunal had regard to the evidence given by the applicant and the respondent, and accepts the applicant's evidence on these issues in preference to the evidence given by the respondent. The Tribunal accepts the applicant's evidence that she relied on the respondent to provide the timber and considers the applicant's evidence that she relied on Mr Faulds, as the very experienced tradesman, to source the timber. Mr Faulds gave evidence that he had used that timber supplier for quite a number of years, and that he himself delivered the timber to the applicant. Mr Faulds did not charge the applicant for the delivery of the timber and gave evidence to the effect that the reason he did not charge for the delivery was that he had worked recently with the applicant's father and that the idea was to do this job as cheaply as possible. It seems more probable than not that Mr Faulds, being an experienced timber floor installer, would have the wherewithal that the applicant would lack, to source the timber and it is consistent with what is probable in the circumstances of this case that the applicant would look to the respondent to provide the timber. The Tribunal accepts the applicant's contention that the respondent provided the timber that was used for the installation. In making this finding, the Tribunal notes the respondent's contention that there is no evidence of a markup being added to the price of the timber that was sourced for the installation. This factor does not prevent the Tribunal from being satisfied that the respondent did supply the timber. The lack of evidence with regard to a builders markup is consistent with the work being provided for a family friend, which the applicant was, and its procurement, by way of the respondent delegating the task of making payment direct to the supplier is consistent with a course that might be undertaken where the work being performed was work for a family friend with a view to doing the job as cheaply as possible. The Tribunal rejects the respondent's evidence that the job was for the installation and polishing of the floor only and is satisfied that the respondent sourced and provided the timber for the installation and, as part of that source supply, directed the applicant to meet with the supplier direct and to pay for the timber direct. The Tribunal is satisfied that the payment of $6,500 was made by the applicant to the timber supplier, at the respondent's direction, and that the $6,500 formed part of the contract price which was in the amount of $14,500 as asserted by the applicant. The Tribunal rejects the respondent's evidence that the contract price was in the sum of $8,700 and also rejects the respondent's contention that the applicant was responsible for supplying the timber. The Tribunal rejects the evidence of Mr Faulds in these issues.
66 A series of photographs were taken by the applicant and provided to the Building Commission on 21 September 2015. The Tribunal accepts that the photographs were taken when the applicant says they were taken and the photographs demonstrate vividly that the complaint made by the applicant was credible and that the installation of the floor was not carried out in a proper and proficient manner, or was faulty and unsatisfactory. The interior of the applicant's house was clearly unsafe but notwithstanding that the applicant still sought to engage the respondent in order to resolve the complaint without recourse to litigation. The Tribunal accepts the applicant's evidence that her wish was, because of the previous family friendship between her and Mr Faulds, to avoid the escalation of the complaints but finds that in the circumstances there was no other option open to her but to commence the complaints before the Building Commission.
67 The Tribunal accepts that the complaint made by the applicant was credible. In this case the Tribunal is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the only reasonable solution was for the applicant to replace the entire floor and that the applicant acted reasonably when she did so.
68 The respondent was aware of the complaint and the remedy sought. The respondent's evidence was that it received the ATFA Report in or around the middle of June 2015 (Hearing Book page 185). It had become aware that the ATFA Report had been commissioned in May 2015 (Hearing Book page 185). The Tribunal does not accept the respondent's contention that it was not afforded the opportunity to rectify the work. The respondent informed the Building Commission on 13 October 2015 that, due to health reasons, he would not carry out the remedial work himself (Hearing Book page 44). This evidence was consistent with the evidence that Mr Faulds gave before the Tribunal, namely that he could not do remedial work because he had a heart attack. The expert called by the respondent, Mr Kiely, gave evidence to the effect that if Mr Faulds could not undertake rectification work, assuming that it was required, that it was for Mr Faulds to ensure someone else undertook that work. The Tribunal accepts this evidence from Mr Kiely. Notwithstanding his illness, Mr Faulds might have considered engaging another tradesman to inspect and, if necessary, rectify the defects in the installation. The applicant's evidence was that the respondent was invited a number of times to inspect the installation. The Tribunal notes that the applicant's desired remedy was that the floor be pulled up and replaced as early as 30 June 2015, as this was the remedy sought in the Building Complaint (Hearing Book pages 4 and 6). In spite of this, the respondent took no steps to inspect, either by Mr Faulds or by another competent agent, the installation. When the applicant removed the timber floor installation it was January 2016, some six months after the Building Complaint was made. By letter dated 30 October 2015, the respondent's solicitors replied to the notice of proposed complaint dated 6 July 2015 and the ATFA Inspection Report dated 9 June 2015 and made it clear that the respondent did not accept responsibility, that the complaint should be dismissed and that the respondent did not propose to further reply. In the course of that correspondence the respondent referred to the decision of the Tribunal in Vulin and Bamboozle (WA) Pty Ltd T/as Bamboozle [2014] WASAT 55(Bamboozle).
219. … However, it submitted that his Honour was in error in concluding that Lesdor was not entitled to damages measured by what it would cost to rectify the defective work on the common property.
225. … that if the Court found that rectification work would never be undertaken, that finding would remove any ground for compensation.
226. It submitted that the trial judge had found as a fact that the rectification work would not be undertaken and that that finding was open on the evidence.
227. In my opinion the primary judge was justified in concluding that the rectification work would not be carried out. … there was a surplus … which could have been applied to rectify the defects.
228. In addition, title to the common property is vested in the various owners corporations[.]
229. Whilst I accept that a possibility that rectification work will not be carried out does not preclude a claim for damages. Bellgrove v Eldridge supra at 620, and that unreasonableness will only be established in exceptional circumstances. Tabcorp Holdings Ltd supra at [17], in the present case the carrying out of the work would be unreasonable in the sense described by Giles JA[.]
…
… An intention not to carry out the rectification work will not of itself make carrying out the work unreasonable, but it may be evidentiary of unreasonableness, if the reason for the intention is that the property is perfectly functional and aesthetically pleasing despite the non-complying work, for example, it may well be found that rectification is out of all proportion to achievement of the contractual objective or to the benefit to be thereby obtained.
230. The combination of the lack of intention to carry out the rectification work, the transfer of the property from Lesdor to the owners corporation and the absence of any evidence that the defects were affecting the use and occupation of the building or the common property leads, in my opinion, to the conclusion that it would be unreasonable to carry out the work and that damages for the cost of rectification should therefore not be awarded.
92 In the present case, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is no intention to carry out the remedial work. The Tribunal finds that the applicant did remove the flooring and that, at the time of the hearing, the property is functional and aesthetically pleasing, but this is by reason of the steps taken by the applicant to address the unsatisfactory building service undertaken by the respondent.
93 The evidence, which the Tribunal accepts, is that the rectification work that was undertaken, namely the tiling of the premises following the removal of the floor, was undertaken because it was what the applicant could afford. This work did not represent either what the applicant wished for, or bargained for, when she contracted with the respondent. The Tribunal does not consider that it would be unreasonable, by reason of the rectification work that has occurred, to make a building remedy order to compensate the applicant. The Tribunal does not consider that the applicant's intention with regard to rectification has any bearing, adverse to her claim, on the proper measure of the compensation in this case.
94 The applicant opened her case on the basis that the compensation should include a provision for costs and specifically the costs of Mr Marston's report and attendance. No evidence of these costs were lead in the hearing. The Tribunal notes that there is a reference in Hearing Book page 90 to the likely cost of Mr Marston's inspection and report as being $1,154 and, as such appears, on the face of it, probable that the applicant incurred some costs for Mr Marston's report and attendance at the hearing. The Tribunal proposes to order that the applicant have liberty to make an application for costs.
Orders
1 On or before 18 November 2016 the respondent must pay the applicant by way of compensation $22,447.
2. The applicant shall have liberty to apply for their costs of the proceeding, by filing with the Tribunal and giving to the respondent, on or before 25 November 2016, the following documents:
(a) a schedule of the costs claimed in sufficient detail to enable the Tribunal to assess and fix any costs which might be awarded, together with any supporting documents upon which the applicant wishes to rely; and
(b) written submissions addressing the basis upon which it is contended costs should be awarded and the quantum of costs claimed.
3. If the applicant makes an application for costs, the respondent may, on or before 9 December 2016, file with the Tribunal and give to the applicant written submissions opposing the application.
4. Subject to further order, if the applicant makes an application for costs, the Tribunal shall, after the respondent files its written submissions, or by 9 December 2016, whichever is the earlier, determine the application on the documents and if costs are awarded, shall fix the amount of such costs.
I certify that this and the preceding [94] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR D MACLEAN, MEMBER
0
6
1