NORTHCOTT and REALGOLD CORPORATION PTY LTD (ACN 117 580 560)

The plaintiff, Northcott, brought proceedings against Realgold Corporation in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the respondent had provided a regulated building service that was faulty or unsatisfactory, in breach of the Home Building Act 1994 (WA). The core of the dispute was whether a significant deviation in the colour of concrete supplied and installed by the respondent constituted a 'faulty or unsatisfactory' service under the Act. The court had to determine if the statutory term 'faulty or unsatisfactory' was objectively determined and if the respondent's service met the standard required.

The primary legal issue was the interpretation of the statutory phrase 'faulty or unsatisfactory' in the context of regulated building services. The court examined whether the objective standard of determining whether a service is 'faulty or unsatisfactory' required a comparison between the service and the statutory standard, or if it also involved a comparison with the expectations of the customer. The court had to consider whether a significant deviation in colour from the colour swatch provided by the respondent could be deemed 'faulty or unsatisfactory' under an objective standard.

The Supreme Court concluded that the statutory term 'faulty or unsatisfactory' should be interpreted objectively. The court found that the respondent's deviation in colour from the colour swatch provided was significant and objectively constituted a 'faulty or unsatisfactory' service. The court held that the comparison for determining whether a service is 'faulty or unsatisfactory' is between the service and the statutory standard, not necessarily aligned with the expectations of the customer. The court found that the respondent's service did not meet the standard required by the Act.

The court ordered that the respondent had provided a regulated building service that was 'faulty or unsatisfactory', in breach of the Home Building Act 1994 (WA). The court granted the declaration sought by the plaintiff. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the proceeding.