Owners of Island Apartments Strata Plan 52597 and Pindan Pty Ltd

The Owners of Island Apartments Strata Plan 52597 sought an order under the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA) for the rectification of alleged defects in the waterproofing of the building's balconies. The Owners alleged that the waterproofing was defective and that the builder, Pindan Pty Ltd, had failed to properly complete the waterproofing works. The builder argued that the specifications provided by the Owners were inadequate and that any issues were a result of those specifications. The Owners contended that the builder had failed to properly execute the works in accordance with the specifications provided. The dispute was ultimately heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the building remedy order should be granted, and if so, what form that order should take. The court needed to determine whether the alleged defects constituted a breach of the Act, whether the remedy should be proportionate to the breach, and whether previous remedial works should be taken into account in determining the appropriate remedy. The court also had to consider the relevance of the contract specifications in resolving the dispute.

The court held that the alleged defects constituted a breach of the Act and that a building remedy order should be made. The court found that the specifications provided by the Owners were relevant in determining whether the builder had properly executed the works. The court also held that the remedy should be proportionate to the breach and that previous remedial works should be taken into account in determining the appropriate remedy. The court found that the previous remedial works had not shown signs of failure and that the builder had taken appropriate steps to address the issues. The court held that the appropriate remedy was for the builder to undertake further remedial works to ensure that the waterproofing was properly completed.

The court ordered that the builder undertake further remedial works to ensure that the waterproofing of the balconies was properly completed. The court held that the order should be proportionate to the breach and that the builder should be given a reasonable opportunity to complete the works. The court also held that the previous remedial works should be taken into account in determining the appropriate remedy and that the builder should be given credit for the steps it had already taken to address the issues. The court did not make any orders as to costs.