OWNERS OF STRATA PLAN 52843 and PSAROS BUILDERS PTY LTD
Case
•
[2013] WASAT 46
•05/04/2013
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
OWNERS OF STRATA PLAN 52843 and PSAROS BUILDERS PTY LTD [2013] WASAT 46
[2013] WASAT 46
05/04/2013
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In this case, the Owners of Strata Plan 52843 and PSAROS Builders Pty Ltd were before the court. The dispute centred around the construction and waterproofing of a basement, with the Owners of Strata Plan 52843 asserting that the basement was not constructed in a proper and proficient manner and was faulty or unsatisfactory. The Owners of Strata Plan 52843 sought remedies under the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), including compensation for money already paid to third parties to rectify poor workmanship. The court was tasked with determining whether the Tribunal had the authority to grant multiple building remedy orders in respect of the same regulated building service, whether section 36(1)(c) of the Act was broad enough to cover compensation for payments made to third parties, and whether the basement construction and waterproofing met the required standards.
The court examined the statutory framework and found that the Act did not explicitly prohibit the granting of multiple building remedy orders for the same regulated building service. The court also considered the purpose of the Act, which is to ensure building services are carried out in a proper and proficient manner, and concluded that section 36(1)(c) was broad enough to encompass compensation for payments made to third parties. Additionally, the court assessed the evidence regarding the basement construction and waterproofing and determined that the work was not carried out in a proper and proficient manner and was indeed faulty or unsatisfactory. Finally, the court found that the Owners of Strata Plan 52843 did not have a duty to warn the principal of non-compliance with the Building Code of Australia.
Following its analysis, the court granted the application. The court found that the Tribunal had the authority to grant multiple building remedy orders and that compensation for payments made to third parties was within the scope of the Act. The court also confirmed that the basement construction and waterproofing were faulty or unsatisfactory and made orders accordingly. The precise nature of these orders is not detailed in the extract, but they would likely involve compensation for the costs incurred by the Owners of Strata Plan 52843 in rectifying the issues with the basement construction and waterproofing.
The court examined the statutory framework and found that the Act did not explicitly prohibit the granting of multiple building remedy orders for the same regulated building service. The court also considered the purpose of the Act, which is to ensure building services are carried out in a proper and proficient manner, and concluded that section 36(1)(c) was broad enough to encompass compensation for payments made to third parties. Additionally, the court assessed the evidence regarding the basement construction and waterproofing and determined that the work was not carried out in a proper and proficient manner and was indeed faulty or unsatisfactory. Finally, the court found that the Owners of Strata Plan 52843 did not have a duty to warn the principal of non-compliance with the Building Code of Australia.
Following its analysis, the court granted the application. The court found that the Tribunal had the authority to grant multiple building remedy orders and that compensation for payments made to third parties was within the scope of the Act. The court also confirmed that the basement construction and waterproofing were faulty or unsatisfactory and made orders accordingly. The precise nature of these orders is not detailed in the extract, but they would likely involve compensation for the costs incurred by the Owners of Strata Plan 52843 in rectifying the issues with the basement construction and waterproofing.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Statutory Interpretation
-
Regulatory Compliance
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
JANEBA and THE OWNERS OF BULIMBA GROVE VILLA STRATA PLAN 3266 [2022] WASAT 83
Cases Citing This Decision
22
JANEBA and THE OWNERS OF BULIMBA GROVE VILLA STRATA PLAN 3266
[2022] WASAT 83
KOS and DND BUILDING CO PTY LTD
[2020] WASAT 95
OWNERS OF STRATA PLAN 65323 and PALAZZO HOMES PTY LTD
[2020] WASAT 57 (S)
Cases Cited
8
Statutory Material Cited
11
ATKINSON and RIO VISTA PTY LTD TRADING AS FREEDOM POOLS AND SPAS
[2012] WASAT 116
Brodun Construction and Love and Anor
[2008] WASAT 174
Cable (1956) Ltd v Hutcherson Bros Pty Ltd
[1969] HCA 37