PERTH CENTRAL HOLDINGS PTY LTD and DORIC CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD [2008] WASAT 302
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2008] WASAT 302 | |
| BUILDERS' REGISTRATION ACT 1939 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CC:1337/2006 | 6 FEBRUARY 2008, 20 FEBRUARY 2008 AND 30 JUNE 2008 | |
| Coram: | MR C RAYMOND (SENIOR MEMBER) MR P McNAB (MEMBER) MR R AFFLECK (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) | 18/12/08 | |
| 13/11/08 | |||
| 23 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Compensation and costs awarded to applicant owner | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | PERTH CENTRAL HOLDINGS PTY LTD DORIC CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD |
Catchwords: | Building and construction Builders' Registration Act 1939 (WA) Faulty or unsatisfactory building work Failure to test substrate for moisture Tribunal had previously held that Building Disputes Tribunal had misconceived evidence Further proceedings in the Tribunal to establish compensation sum Costs of remedying the building work Whether limited to damages amounts or having regard to analogous principles Full rectification by owner sought Builder offering replacement costs only Tribunal held that as claim made under statute, Tribunal was not limited to common law principles Held that owner's proposals would represent a fair compensation amount Consideration of certain interim repair costs, legal costs and disbursements |
Legislation: | Builders' Registration Act 1939 (WA), s 12A, s 12A(1), s 12A(1)(a), s 12A(1aa), s 12A(1)(b), s 12A(4a), s 36, s 38, s 41(5) Home Building Contracts Act 1991 (WA) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 9, s 29(1), s 87 |
Case References: | Commodore Homes (WA) Pty Ltd and Austin (2005) 41 SR (WA) 236, [2005] WASAT 292 Content Living Pty Ltd v McIntosh [2005] WADC 173 Craig Carle Homes Pty Ltd v Rushton [2001] WADC 173 Lai and Costa [2006] WASAT 117 (S) Lilley v LindsaySmith [2001] WASCA 168 Nelson v Mardesic (1998) 22 SR (WA) 42 Perth Central Holdings Pty Ltd and Doric Constructions Pty Ltd [2007] WASAT 239 Rainbow Pty Ltd and Hawkins [2007] WASAT 216 (S) Tangent Nominees Pty Ltd v Edwards [2005] WASAT 119 Watson v Wallington [1999] WADC 84 |
Orders | The Tribunal will accordingly issue orders as follows:,1. The decision of the Tribunal, as hereinafter set out, is substituted for that of the Building Disputes Tribunal :,(i) On or before 21 January 2009 the respondent must pay to the applicant the sum of $317,138 being:,(a) for current proposed repairs ($223,000 plus 5% plus 10% GST) $257,565.00,(b) for cranage costs 5,360.00,(c) for interim repairs 15,755.00,(d) in respect of the BDT proceedings for:,(i) legal costs 28,788.00,(ii) disbursements including expert witness fees 9,670.00,2. On or before 21 January 2009, the applicant shall file and serve a further bill of costs, not inconsistent with the Tribunal's reasons, in respect of these final proceedings, together with written submissions supporting the costs claimed.,3. The parties are directed to negotiate with each other in good faith on the applicant's bill of costs to produce a minute of consent orders (which must include the costs fixed by the Tribunal in respect of the leave and review (on liability only)), to be filed by the… |
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Perth Central Holdings Pty Ltd and Doric Constructions Pty L... and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2008] WASAT 302
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Perth Central Holdings Pty Ltd and Doric Constructions Pty Ltd were involved in a dispute concerning unsatisfactory building work. The case was heard by the Building Disputes Tribunal of Western Australia. The primary issue was whether the compensation sum, determined by the Tribunal, should be limited to the damages as per common law principles or whether it could consider analogous principles. The dispute arose from the builder's failure to test the substrate for moisture, leading to unsatisfactory building work. The Tribunal had previously determined that it had misconceived evidence, prompting further proceedings to establish the appropriate compensation sum.
The legal question before the Tribunal was whether the compensation amount should be constrained by common law damages or if it could consider other analogous principles. The Tribunal held that, as the claim was made under statute, it was not confined to the common law principles. The owner had proposed full rectification of the building work, whereas the builder offered to cover only the replacement costs. The Tribunal concluded that the owner's proposal represented a fair compensation amount, taking into account the principles of full rectification. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered interim repair costs, legal costs, and disbursements in its determination.
The Tribunal ruled that the compensation should reflect the full cost of rectifying the unsatisfactory building work. The Tribunal was not restricted to common law damages but could consider analogous principles to arrive at a fair compensation sum. The Tribunal took into account the owner's proposal for full rectification, the builder's offer to cover replacement costs, and additional factors such as interim repair costs, legal costs, and disbursements. The Tribunal issued orders to reflect these considerations and determine the appropriate compensation sum for the unsatisfactory building work.
The Tribunal ordered that the compensation sum would be based on the full rectification of the building work, considering the owner's proposal and relevant costs. The Tribunal did not limit itself to common law damages but applied analogous principles to arrive at a fair compensation amount. The Tribunal also included consideration of interim repair costs, legal costs, and disbursements in its determination. The orders issued by the Tribunal aimed to provide a just resolution to the dispute between Perth Central Holdings Pty Ltd and Doric Constructions Pty Ltd concerning the unsatisfactory building work.
The legal question before the Tribunal was whether the compensation amount should be constrained by common law damages or if it could consider other analogous principles. The Tribunal held that, as the claim was made under statute, it was not confined to the common law principles. The owner had proposed full rectification of the building work, whereas the builder offered to cover only the replacement costs. The Tribunal concluded that the owner's proposal represented a fair compensation amount, taking into account the principles of full rectification. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered interim repair costs, legal costs, and disbursements in its determination.
The Tribunal ruled that the compensation should reflect the full cost of rectifying the unsatisfactory building work. The Tribunal was not restricted to common law damages but could consider analogous principles to arrive at a fair compensation sum. The Tribunal took into account the owner's proposal for full rectification, the builder's offer to cover replacement costs, and additional factors such as interim repair costs, legal costs, and disbursements. The Tribunal issued orders to reflect these considerations and determine the appropriate compensation sum for the unsatisfactory building work.
The Tribunal ordered that the compensation sum would be based on the full rectification of the building work, considering the owner's proposal and relevant costs. The Tribunal did not limit itself to common law damages but applied analogous principles to arrive at a fair compensation amount. The Tribunal also included consideration of interim repair costs, legal costs, and disbursements in its determination. The orders issued by the Tribunal aimed to provide a just resolution to the dispute between Perth Central Holdings Pty Ltd and Doric Constructions Pty Ltd concerning the unsatisfactory building work.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal will accordingly issue orders as follows:
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.