Oakview Constructions P/L v Stuckler
[2012] QCAT 87
•24 February 2012
CITATION: Oakview Constructions P/L v Stuckler [2012] QCAT 87
PARTIES: Oakview Constructions P/L t/a AIB v Ms Katharina Stuckler
APPLICATION NUMBER: BDL027-10
MATTER TYPE: Building matters
HEARING DATE: 10, 11 November 2011
HEARD AT: Maroochydore
DECISION OF: Michael James Howe, Member
DELIVERED ON: 24 February 2012
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:
1. Katharina Stuckler immediately pay Oakview Constructions Pty Ltd the sum of $17,954.83 for claim and interest.
2. Oakview Constructions Pty Ltd rectify at their expense the following agreed issues by 31 March 2012, Katharina Stuckler to allow all necessary access to the property at all reasonable hours to allow that work to be done:
Agreed Issues:
(a) Replacement of the present ramp with stairs in accordance with the original approved Council plan;
(b) Replace the hinges on the toilet door with lift off hinges;
(c) Repair all damaged metal windows and door jams/architrave frames to a condition suitable for painting;
(d) Install moulding between the external walls and the roof;
(e) Add bracing to the back deck to stabilise it;
(f) Waterproof the ends of bearers and apply a mechanical covering in accordance with the recommendations of the manufacturer.
3. Following rectification of the said agreed issues Katharina Stuckler to pay to the sum of $3,646.50 to Oakview Constructions Pty Ltd.
4. Should Katharina Stuckler refuse access to the property as directed to allow Oakview Constructions to perform work comprising the said agreed issues, Oakview Constructions Pty Ltd is relieved of all obligation to perform such work and Katharina Stuckler is relieved of the obligation to pay the sum of $3,646.50 to Oakview Constructions Pty Ltd for such work.
5. Katharina Stuckler pay costs in the sum of $1,500.00 to Oakview Constructions Pty Ltd by 9 March 2012.
CATCHWORDS: Building Dispute – where builder built in accordance with agreement – written plans not truly reflecting the agreement between the parties – substantial breach – requirements of notice of substantial breach – experts in conclave – party ignoring experts reports – Tribunal appointing assessor – draftsman errors – owner’s repudiation of contract – costs APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
APPLICANT: Oakview Constructions P/L t/a AIB represented by Mr Gary Witchell
RESPONDENT: Ms Katharina Stuckler appeared on her own behalf REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] On 21 January 2009 Mrs Stuckler entered into a building contract with Oakview Constructions Pty Ltd, builders. Mrs Stuckler wanted them to build her a home. The contract price was $158,850 to be paid in six instalments.
[2] The builders did work building the home. Mrs Stuckler paid the first five payments in accordance with the contract. The final payment was an amount payable on practical completion. That has never been paid.
[3] The builders have now sued Mrs Stuckler for $18,808.86 claimed to be the amount still outstanding.
[4] By mid-March 2009 the plans for the house had been drawn and lodged with the local government. The architectural plans were approved in June 2009. On 27 June, 2009 engineering drawings were approved.
[5] In July 2009 Mrs Stuckler arranged for her friend, Mr Broderick, to cut levels at the site preparatory to construction. Mr Broderick gave evidence at the hearing.
[6] In August 2009 the footings for the house were poured by the builders assisted by Mr Broderick.
[7] Construction proceeded but Mrs Stuckler became unhappy with the work. By letter dated 14 December 2009 she advised the builders of a number of defects she considered existed in the building. They didn’t attend to them.
[8] Mrs Stuckler gave the builder another letter on 12 January 2010. In that correspondence she said the contract was at an end and gave them 10 days to rectify the defects. The builders did not rectify as demanded. Subsequently, on 28 January 2010 she purported to terminate the building contract.
[9] On 28 January 2010 Mrs Stuckler took possession of the property by replacing the locks and locking out the builder.
[10] From the builder’s perspective, they had had a final building inspection by their certifiers on 20 January 2010 and a Form 21 Certificate of Practical Completion from the certifiers on 27 January 2010 which they forwarded the next day to Mrs Stuckler together with a final invoice claiming $18,608.86.
[11] The builders claim is for that sum. Mrs Stuckler counterclaims for the cost of rectifying outstanding defects. Essentially Mrs Stuckler maintains that the house must be rebuilt. She has tendered a quote from BPS Constructions to do that in the sum of $159,427.18. Mrs Stuckler submits the only way to ensure she obtains the house she contracted for will be for the house to be taken back to floor level and rebuilt. She says it is a "doubtful remedy" to haphazardly fix specific items of complaint where the house has clearly not been built to contractual specification.
Reports
[12] By order of the Tribunal dated 18 May 2010 Queensland Building Services Authority (BSA) was requested to appoint an inspector as an assessor to conduct an enquiry into the defects issues raised by Mrs Stuckler. That was done with the inspector attending at the home site with the parties and thereafter supplying a written report to the Tribunal. The report was dated 16 September 2010.
[13] The parties also each engaged their own experts. The parties’ experts met in conclave and prepared a joint report. In fact the two experts prepared two joint reports. Both have been tendered in this matter. The first joint report is dated 25 March 2011 and the second 18 August 2011.
[14] A significant proportion of Mrs Stuckler ‘s case is based on an argument that the house as constructed by the builders is not structurally sound.
[15] There is nothing contained in the BSA report to indicate that.
[16] In the experts reports the experts concluded that the laminated roof beams utilised in lieu of the RHS shown on the architectural drawings were structurally adequate for the design loadings. They also agreed that the roof structure was structurally connected to the external frames and the external frames connected to the sandwich wall panelling (ecopanels). They agreed that the centre column connection was adequately tied down.
[17] Both experts also agreed that the roof sandwich panels have been adequately tied down and fixed in accordance with the Australian standard. They agreed the floor joists size as designed by the timber supplier was satisfactory. In so far as it is an issue both experts agreed that the issue of “ecopanel” walls as opposed to stud frame walls was a contractual matter between the parties and not a structural issue.
[18] The only significant matter that the experts do not agree on is the connection of the bearers to the cross bearers. The floor bearer is connected to the cross bearers by 6mm cleats. The builders’ engineer maintains the 6mm cleats are structurally sound and adequate for the design loadings. Mrs Stuckler’s expert disagrees and maintains the 6mm cleats are not structurally satisfactory and an 8mm cleat is more acceptable for a structural connection. The builder's expert elaborates on his explanation that the 6mm cleat is sufficient by explaining that the shear capacity of the metal cleat used is such that the timber would fail before the metal cleat. Given Mrs Stuckler’s expert does not take issue with that reasoning, one wonders how it can be argued that the connection is not structurally sufficient? Accordingly I accept the evidence of the builder’s expert and find the cleat used is sufficient for its intended purpose.
[19] In light of the expert reports and the evidence of Mr Tjin, one of the builders, that all cross bearers and bearers were fixed with the 6mm cleats, which I accept (though disputed by Mrs Stuckler and her witness Mr Broderick), I cannot find in favour of Mrs Stuckler's argument that the house is not structurally sound. Added to that of course is the final inspection certificate Form 21 by the certifiers dated 27 January 2010 that certifies that on inspection the building work was inspected and complies with requirements. I conclude the house is structurally sound.
Defects
[20] Mrs Stuckler also argues however, or perhaps in any case, that the copious defects are such that anything other than taking the house back to floor level and rebuilding will be a doubtful remedy to fix her items of complaint and would not adequately compensate her for her loss. I shall therefore proceed to examine the various items of complaint.
Stud Wall
[21] Other than general structural unsoundness, this appears to be the most significant of the "defects" complained about by Ms Stuckler. It was only late in the proceedings that the key problem she has with respect to the walls was made clear. That key problem was not the general aesthetics of non-plasterboard walls as the applicant builder understood to be the case until the second day of hearing, but the inability to "chase" power leads inside the “ecopanel” walls, leaving the wiring to view.
[22] The builder argues it was never part of the contract that there would be stud walls. In cross-examination Mrs Stuckler admitted that it was her suggestion, when originally discussing the design of the house with the builders, to use “ecopanels” for the walls. Ecopanels are a particular form of expanded polystyrene panelling. There are a number of similar products on the market. Mr Berqgvist, a director of the company which makes the panels, gave evidence for the builders. He said his company's eco-panels were cyclone tested and resisted stress better than other similar preformed panels and that it was not usual practice to chase wires inside the panels. Power wiring was not chased or hidden inside the panels but the wiring was left exposed though protected in conduit attached to the walls or ceiling as required.
[23] This particular bone of contention between the parties has arisen through a failure in communication and, it appears, through error on the part of a draftsman. It was Mrs Stuckler who suggested the use of the eco-panels for “the walls”. The builder agreed with that suggestion.
[24] According to Mr Tjin the error that has arisen has arisen because the draughtsman who created the architectural drawings incorrectly noted some wall widths at 70mm rather than the eco-panel width of 78mm. The engineer who prepared the engineering drawings then interpreted the 70mm dimension to mean stud walls were intended instead of eco-panel walls. That is a standard dimension where stud walls are being used. The relevant plan is floor plan A 102. What makes the matter even more confusing is that the external walls are clearly marked at 78mm, but some internal walls at 70mm. Mr Mitchell referred to item 4.6 of the specifications of the contract, which refers to "Frame and Trusses ‘eco-panel’ roof panels – 700mm (W) x 104mm (D)". In cross-examination Mrs Stuckler agreed she suggested using eco-panels for the walls and the builders agreed to that. According to her, there was nothing more said about walls. Certainly there was nothing discussed about stud walls and plasterboard.
[25] I note as significant that this so-called defect was not listed in the letter from Mrs Stuckler to the builders listing defects dated 14 December 2009. To my mind that indicates that the use of eco-panels rather than stud walls only became an issue to Mrs Stuckler when she excluded the builders from the site and litigation became a real prospect.
[26] I find that what was agreed between the parties was that all the walls of the building, external and internal, were to be constructed with ecopanels. The builders ignored the "error" of the draughtsman and the mistaken conclusion by the engineer about stud walls, and built the house entirely out of ecopanels, because that was the agreement between the parties. The issue as to electrical wires being chased inside the walls was not raised at the time of contract.
[27] The wiring in exposed conduit was in accordance with requirements of the manufacturer of ecopanels. Mrs Stuckler cannot now complain that the exposed wiring is a breach of the contract on the part of the builders. Had the builders in fact built the house with some stud walls and plasterboard they would, more than likely, have found themselves responding to a claim for breach of contract by Mrs Stuckler because they should only have used ecopanels.
[28] What the builders should have done was explain the drafting error to Mrs Stuckler and confirmed the agreement as to ecopanels throughout. That would have been good and workmanlike practice. It is clear however that the relationship between the parties deteriorated over the course of the construction which, I have no doubt the builders would argue, led to that not occurring. At the end of the day however, the builders built in accordance with the agreement between the parties, which agreement was not correctly represented in the drawings, and Mrs Stuckler cannot now succeed on this point. The matter was not raised as a defect in Mrs Stuckler’s letter of complaint of 14 December 2009, which means at that time she accepted the use of ecopanels rather than stud walls was correct.
Building in Under
[29] Mrs Stuckler has complained that she had intended to build underneath the house once the house was finished. She says the house has not been built high enough to allow her to do that now, which is in breach of the design. The builders deny they were ever advised by Mrs Stuckler that she intended to build under the house. In any case, they say, she may still do so if she so chooses.
[30] The original architectural plans A 103 and A 104 show the upper part of the proposed dwelling was, at least as to part of the area under the house, to be a height of 2,680mm from floor to top of bearer. Again, the plans aren't entirely clear. Plan A 104 appears to indicate that the proposed maximum height under the dwelling was to be 2,680mm from ground to the bottom of the bearers. Plan A 105 however, shows the detail of bearers and floor joists. A 105 makes it quite clear that the height of 2,680 mm is to the top of the bearers, not the bottom. This means that the builders were required by the plans to allow a space of 2,440mm between ground and bottom of bearers.
[31] The original floor design called for bearers 12m long. The floor joists were to sit on top of the bearers, however. The builders found they were unable to legally transport those lengths to the site and the plans had to be redesigned. That claim on the part of the builders was not challenged by Mrs Stuckler. The floor was redesigned by STA Consulting Engineers in conjunction with Tilling Timbers. As part of the redesign, the bearers were shortened and the floor joists were designed to fit beneath but flush to the top of the bearers.
[32] In end result, the stumps beneath the bearers were increased and at greatest height are 2,550mm. This has meant that the height between bottom of bearer and the ground has been increased by 110mm over the original design.
[33] To my mind that is the end of the issue. The builders say all Mrs Stuckler needs is a height of 2,400mm to build beneath the house. She has that and more. There was no evidence led to indicate that is not correct. The builders have complied with the height requirements specified in the drawings. I do not find that there was any greater requirement required under the terms of the contract.
Exposed Structural Members
[34] Mrs Stuckler complains that the ends of laminated bearers are exposed to the weather and they will deteriorate, which will result in a failure of support to the structural frames over the bearers. In the second experts report, Mrs Stuckler's expert states that the exposed timber bearers, which are not of an external grade, cannot be adequately protected from the elements. He says it is a major issue and if it cannot be overcome it will require that the bearers be cut back and this will remove the support for the structural frames over the bearers. The builders expert claims the issue would not be an issue if an adequately constructed boxing protected the exposed bearers from water exposure and water ingress. Mrs Stuckler's expert responds to that to say he would be satisfied if, as to the boxing in suggestion, the laminated bearer manufacturer guaranteed in writing for the expected design life of the structure.
[35] Two letters from Hyne Timber dated respectively 26 July 2010 and 28 September 2011 were tendered. They addressed this issue. In the letter of 28 September 2011, Hyne stated that though the particular exposed beams were not Hyne products, Hyne was confident the manufacturer would confirm that a capping arrangement could be installed and then the exposed beam would no longer be exposed to weather.
[36] The beams concerned are manufactured by Tilling Timbers. A letter from that company dated 29 September 2011, was tendered as an exhibit to an affidavit of Mr Mitchell, one of the builders. In that letter, Mr Kay, their National Product Manager, confirms that providing the projecting wood product can be kept at moisture content less than 20% and is protected from direct exposure to sunlight, there is no reason why the beams should not last as long as the rest of the structure around them. He states that it would be necessary to treat the affected area with a suitable wood fungicide or mouldacide or both and then when dry to enclose the external wood with a totally waterproof mechanical barrier such as water resistant cement sheet, or metal sheet. He goes on to talk about some particulars of the necessary construction involved. He finishes with the statement that subject to the beam being protected in the manner described, Tilling Timber would be willing to warrant the product to the limits of their "Smartframe Product Warranty".
[37] The BSA inspector also recommended something similar. The inspector suggested the builder install matching colourbond metal capping to the ends of all exposed floor joists and roof beams to prevent exposure to the weather.
[38] The proposed capping of the exposed beams would, in my opinion, solve any potential future issues concerning structural soundness of the beams. I do not consider that the bearers will need to be cut off, which in turn would require the removal of the walls and the roof. The builders must attend to this as good workmanlike practice in the circumstances, regardless of whether the capping is a requirement of the contract, which it is not.
Unsuitable Timber Products
[39] Mrs Stuckler complains that the balustrade rails have been made from unsuitable timber. She claims sapwood timber has been used and there are large splits and boreholes caused by pests in the timber. Additionally, she claims, various items of "H2" timber has been used externally and it should not have been.
[40] Mr Tjin gave evidence that the balustrading timber used was of F 27 standard, which is the highest grade of dressed timber available and the highest quality. As to the other issue about "H2" timber, that refers to treated pine. Both the balustrading and the other items of "H2" timber were appropriate, he says, under the contract, but they required painting. Under the specifications to the building contract, painting, inside and out, and staining or oiling of decks or other timber work is the responsibility of the owner. That seems right. I accept Mr Tjin’s statement that if the balustrading timber has started to split, it need not have done if Mrs Stuckler had painted the timber within a reasonable time of it being fixed in the construction of the home.
[41] The issue of painting also has relevance with respect to Mrs Stuckler’s claim concerning the front door. She maintains it has been damaged with the timber veneer splitting and being stained by mould. She blames water damage through incorrectly fitted gutters. Mr Tjin blames lack of paint protection. Given Mrs Stuckler has admitted she has not painted the door, I accept that any failure with respect to that item is not the fault of the builders, but stems from a failure to protect the timber with a paint or stain coating, and that was Mrs Stuckler’s responsibility under the contract.
Agreed Issues
[42] The builder has agreed that a number of matters are outstanding and yet to be done by them. A front ramp has been constructed in lieu of stairs as drawn on the plans. Mr Tjin for the builders gave evidence that the ramp was added instead of stairs at the request of Mrs Stuckler. The only mistake he maintains they made in constructing the ramp was in failing to have a variation form signed by her. The builders are in any case prepared to change the ramp to stairs. Given the consensus on the part of the builders, I do not consider this item need be further canvassed save it be the subject of the orders to be made in this matter.
[43] Similarly, the builders have agreed to replace the present hinges on the toilet door with lift off hinges.
[44] Mrs Stuckler has complained that the window frames and door frames in the house are "seconds". The builders say all such items were new, but some were damaged in transportation prior to installation. They have agreed to attend to those necessary repairs. The recommendation in the BSA report is that the builders repair all damaged metal windows and door jams/architrave frames to a condition suitable to be painted over by the owner and the clear glass in the bathroom window replaced with obscure glass and the windows and doors given final adjustment. The builders have agreed to attend to this work.
[45] The builders have also agreed to apply new vermin proofing in between the external walls and the roof.
[46] Then there is the issue of adding bracing to the back deck to stabilise it. The builders have agreed to perform this work as well.
[47] Finally, there is the issue of capping of the exposed beams. That has already been canvassed.
Practical Completion
[48] Throughout the course of the construction, Mrs Stuckler found cause for complaint with the builders’ efforts. The builders called her involvement interference. What has been made clear from both a consideration of the material tendered and the submissions made is that Mrs Stuckler has, throughout the course of the hearing and in the work leading up to that, ignored the advice of the experts involved in this matter, hers as much as others. Despite the conclave of experts and despite the consensus reached between the experts, Mrs Stuckler has chosen to contest all items of complaint, regardless of support or otherwise of the experts for her position.
[49] Mrs Stuckler submits the evidence demonstrates that, having regard to the defects and unsatisfactory standard of work of the builders, the stage of practical completion was never reached. In light of my findings above, that argument cannot hold weight.
[50] Mrs Stuckler further submits that the Certificate of Practical Completion given in December 2009 by the builders was invalid because the builders failed to give her a signed defect list stipulating which defects were agreed or not agreed, and which defects would be rectified. That may have been the case at the time, however the steps taken by Mrs Stuckler immediately following that made that issue redundant.
[51] Despite the large number of documents filed and tendered in this matter, the Certificate of Practical Completion has not been supplied. The builders gave that Certificate to Mrs Stuckler on about 12 December 2009. Mrs Stuckler responded with a letter to the builders dated 14 December 2009 identifying a list of defects similar in many respects, though not all, to the list of defects which forms the basis of her counterclaim herein. The listed items were generally associated with non-structural complaints at this stage, though a copy of the engineering drawings were requested. There is no date set in that letter by which time the builders were required to have remedied the alleged defects.
[52] The builders left the site over the Christmas 2009 period. They did not return until 15 January 2010. Mr Tjin gave evidence that this was normal practice in the construction industry.
[53] By letter dated 12 January 2010, Mrs Stuckler wrote to the builders and said they had been required to rectify the list of defects and omissions set out in her letter of 14 December 2009 by 31 December 2009 or the (building) contract “was at an end”. That was the purport of the letter. As I have mentioned however, there was no reference to that deadline of 31 December 2009 in the letter of 14th December 2009. On Mrs Stuckler’s evidence, it was her friend and agent, Mr Broderick, who delivered the letter of 14 December 2009 who gave the 31 December ultimatum to the builders. Mr Broderick did not testify to that in his evidence however, nor did the builders address that point.
[54] By the letter of 12 January 2010 Mrs Stuckler clearly stated that to her the contract with the builders was at an end. She gave them a further 10 days from 12 January 2010 to rectify the defects listed in her letter of 14 December, following which she advised she would change the locks and deny the builders entry.
[55] The following occurred. The builders failed to rectify the defects as required by Mrs Stuckler. Mrs Stuckler changed the locks and refused entry to the builders as threatened. The builders certifier inspected the building on 20 January 2010 and a Form 21 Final Inspection Certificate was given to the builders dated 27 January 2010.
[56] By subclause 28.1 of the building contract an owner was entitled to give a notice to remedy breach under subclause 28.3 of the contract if the builder was in substantial breach of the contract. Under subclause 28.3 if a party was in substantial breach of the contract, then the other party could give the party in breach a written notice to remedy breach, specify the substantial breach and require that the substantial breach be rectified within 10 working days after such notice, and stating that if the substantial breach was not rectified the other party intended to end the contract.
[57] Mrs Stuckler’s letter of 14 December 2009 failed to list the necessary matters required by subclause 28.3. There was no substantial breach specified. There was no statement saying the substantial breach was to be rectified within a specified 10 day period after notice given. There was no statement that if the substantial breach was not rectified she intended to end the contract.
[58] Accordingly Mrs Stuckler is unable to rely on these provisions of the contract to justify her actions in advising the builders on 12 January 2010 that the contract was at an end. At no time were the builders in substantial breach of the contract in any case.
[59] Mrs Stuckler’s repudiation of her contractual obligations amounted to a substantial breach of the contract by her. Her taking control of the building site at the least meant that by subclause 26.3 the builders were thereafter entitled to treat the owner's actions as a repudiation of the contract and to accept that repudiation, or give Mrs Stuckler a notice to remedy breach themselves under clause 28, or to accept Mrs Stuckler's actions as a variation of that part of the works not carried out and completed as at the date Mrs Stuckler breached subclause 26.1.
[60] The builders did not take any of those steps. They obtained the Final Inspection Certificate Form 21, regarded the contract as complete as to their obligations, and thereafter maintained a claim to balance moneys owing under the contract and promised completion and remedy of any defects outstanding. They should not be penalised for adopting that course and I find generally that they succeed in their claim herein and Mrs Stuckler’s counterclaim fails.
Orders
[61] The builders estimate of the cost or value of minor defects yet to be remedied is $3,646.50. I take it that figure also includes the cost to the builders of replacing the toilet door hinges with lift off hinges.
[62] Given the builders proceeded on the basis of the contract remaining on foot following Mrs Stuckler’s breach of contract, in my opinion, it is appropriate to therefore make orders with that in mind. I also bear in mind that the issue concerning protection and capping of exposed beams is best addressed by the applicant builders rather than new tradesmen because the builders are intimately familiar with the potential problem and necessary solution.
[63] The builders’ final invoice and the amount claimed in this proceeding is $18,608.86. Of that sum the amount of $14,962.36 is presently due and has been owing to the builders since 28 January 2009. Interest on that sum at the rate of 10% per annum should also be paid from that date. Two years interest is $2,992.47. The builders should rectify the agreed defects listed above within 30 or so days of notice of this decision being given. Mrs Stuckler must allow all necessary access at all reasonable hours to allow that to be done. The builders should then be paid the balance sum of $3,646.50. Should Ms Stuckler want other builders to do that work, she may simply refuse the builders access, and the builders shall be relieved from the obligation to do the work and Ms Stuckler relieved from paying them to do that work. She may then engage her choice of builder.
[64] Despite experts meeting in conclave and the significant structural issues being agreed by them not to exist, Mrs Stuckler pursued this matter without regard to that having occurred. Much of the hearing and before that, the documentation prepared for the hearing, was concerned with issues already settled in large part between the experts. Mrs Stuckler ignored that and in doing so ignored her own expert’s conclusions as well. There was no justification for doing so. That conduct caused unnecessary work, wasted time and expense for all parties. The Tribunal may award costs in matters such as the present[1]. It is appropriate that Mrs Stuckler pay some of the builders’ costs in this matter. Those costs I set at the sum of $1,500.
[1] Section 77 Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991; Lyons v Dreamstarters Pty Ltd [2011] QCATA 142; Whelan and Anor v Limowi Pty Ltd [2011] QCAT 510.
[65] The following orders are appropriate:
- Katharina Stuckler immediately pay Oakview Constructions Pty Ltd the sum of $17,954.83 for claim and interest.
- Oakview Constructions Pty Ltd rectify at their expense the following agreed issues by 31 March 2012, Katharina Stuckler to allow all necessary access to the property at all reasonable hours to allow that work to be done:
Agreed Issues:
(a)Replacement of the present ramp with stairs in accordance with the original approved Council plan;
(b)Replace the hinges on the toilet door with lift off hinges;
(c)Repair all damaged metal windows and door jams/architrave frames to a condition suitable for painting;
(d)Install moulding between the external walls and the roof;
(e)Add bracing to the back deck to stabilise it;
(f)Waterproof the ends of bearers and apply a mechanical covering in accordance with the recommendations of the manufacturer.
- Following rectification of the said agreed issues Katharina Stuckler to pay to the sum of $3,646.50 to Oakview Constructions Pty Ltd.
- Should Katharina Stuckler refuse access to the property as directed to allow Oakview Constructions to perform work comprising the said agreed issues, Oakview Constructions Pty Ltd is relieved of all obligation to perform such work and Katharina Stuckler is relieved of the obligation to pay the sum of $3,646.50 to Oakview Constructions Pty Ltd for such work.
- Katharina Stuckler pay costs in the sum of $1,500.00 to Oakview Constructions Pty Ltd by 9 March 2012.
0
2
0