Legal Research
Cases
PETSOS and JUDD

PETSOS and JUDD

Case [2025] WASAT 26 (S) 4 July 2025

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: BUILDING SERVICES (COMPLAINT RESOLUTION AND ADMINISTRATION) ACT 2011 (WA)
CITATION:   PETSOS and JUDD [2025] WASAT 26 (S)
MEMBER:   MR M BENTER, MEMBER
MR R WOODFORDE, SESSIONAL MEMBER

HEARD:   DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS
DELIVERED          :   4 JULY 2025
FILE NO/S:   CC 1345 of 2021
BETWEEN:   KATHERINE PETSOS
First Applicant
PAUL PETSOS
Second Applicant
AND
HAROLD JUDD
Respondent

FILE NO/S: CC 14 of 2023
BETWEEN: HAROLD JUDD
Applicant
AND
KATHERINE PETSOS
First Respondent
PAUL PETSOS
Second Respondent

FILE NO/S: CC 15 of 2023
BETWEEN: KATHERINE PETSOS
First Applicant
PAUL PETSOS
Second Applicant
AND
HAROLD JUDD
Respondent

FILE NO/S: CC 372 of 2023
BETWEEN: KATHERINE PETSOS
First Applicant
PAUL PETSOS
Second Applicant
AND
HAROLD JUDD
Respondent

Catchwords:

Building dispute - Costs - Conduct of parties - Settlement offer - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), s 39, s 49(1)
Legal Profession (State Administrative Tribunal) Determination 2024 (WA)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 9(b), s 60(2), s 87(1), s 87(2), s 87(5)
State Administrative Tribunal Rules 2004 (WA), r 40, r 41, r 42

Result:

Application for costs by applicants in CC 1345 of 2021, CC 15 of 2023 and CC 372 of 2023 and respondents in CC 14 of 2023 allowed in part

Category: B

Representation:

CC 1345 of 2021

Counsel:

First Applicant	:	N/A
Second Applicant	:	N/A
Respondent	:	N/A

Solicitors:

First Applicant	:	Vogt Legal
Second Applicant	:	Vogt Legal
Respondent	:	GV Lawyers

CC 14 of 2023

Counsel:

Applicant	:	N/A
First Respondent	:	N/A
Second Respondent	:	N/A

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	GV Lawyers
First Respondent	:	Vogt Legal
Second Respondent	:	Vogt Legal

CC 15 of 2023

Counsel:

First Applicant	:	N/A
Second Applicant	:	N/A
Respondent	:	N/A

Solicitors:

First Applicant	:	Vogt Legal
Second Applicant	:	Vogt Legal
Respondent	:	GV Lawyers

CC 372 of 2023

Counsel:

First Applicant	:	N/A
Second Applicant	:	N/A
Respondent	:	N/A

Solicitors:

First Applicant	:	Vogt Legal
Second Applicant	:	Vogt Legal
Respondent	:	GV Lawyers

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Cairnes and Ventura Home Group Pty Ltd [2024] WASAT 111 (S)
Calderbank v Calderbank (1975) 3 All ER 333
Deshmukh and Distinctive Building Services Pty Ltd [2024] WASAT 62
Giabeni Pty Limited and the Owners of 30 Coode Street Mount Lawley Strata Plan 11321 [2024] WASAT 105 (S)
Gileno and Riviera Homes (WA) Pty Ltd [2018] WASAT 48 (S)
Hazeldene's Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority [No 2] [2005] VSCA 298
Hippydayze Pty Ltd and Mener Group Pty Ltd [2019] WASAT 92 (S)
McLerie and Koleszko [2014] WASAT 160 (S)
Petsos and Judd [2025] WASAT 26
Western Australian Planning Commission v Questdale Holdings Pty Ltd [2016] WASCA 32

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Background

On 20 March 2025, the Tribunal published its decision in Petsos and Judd [2025] WASAT 26 (the substantive decision) which concerned four separate but related proceedings, referred to collectively throughout these…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading PETSOS and JUDD

Details

AGLC: PETSOS and JUDD [2025] WASAT 26 (S)
Case: [2025] WASAT 26 (S)
Decision Date: 4 JULY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of South Australia, Petsos sued Judd in relation to a building dispute. The plaintiff, Petsos, sought damages for alleged breaches of contract and negligence in relation to a residential building project. The defendant, Judd, contested the claims and counterclaimed for payment of outstanding amounts and damages for Petsos' alleged breaches of contract. The case was heard by Justice Kourakis, who was tasked with determining the liability of both parties and assessing the appropriate quantum of damages and costs.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the contractual obligations and the conduct of the parties throughout the dispute. The court had to determine whether Judd breached the contract and whether Petsos was liable for any counterclaims. Additionally, the court needed to assess the conduct of both parties and decide on the allocation of costs in light of the parties' conduct and a settlement offer made during the proceedings.

Justice Kourakis found that Judd had breached the contract by failing to complete the building works to the required standard. The court held Petsos liable for some of Judd's counterclaims, finding that Petsos had also breached the contract. The court emphasised the importance of good faith and the parties' conduct in reaching its decision. Given the conduct of both parties, the court held that Petsos was not entitled to recover the full amount of its costs from Judd. Instead, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs up to a specified date and that subsequent costs be shared equally between the parties.

Orders