PETSOS and JUDD - [2025] WASAT 26

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

HEARD:   23, 24 AND 25 OCTOBER 2024
DELIVERED          :   20 MARCH 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 - HBWC complaint items - Building service complaint items - Multiple related proceedings - Whether home owners repudiated the building contract - Whether termination by builder valid - Whether builder repudiated the building contract - Whether termination by home owners valid - Compensation - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), s 3, s 5(1), s 5(2), s 36, s 38(1), s 41, s 43
Home Building Contracts Act 1991 (WA), s 17, Pt 2

Result:

Applications in CC 1345 of 2021, CC 15 of 2023 and CC 372 of 2023 partly successful

Application in CC 14 of 2023 dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

CC 1345 of 2021

Counsel:

First Applicant	:	Mr W Vogt and Mr S Mintz
Second Applicant	:	Mr W Vogt and Mr S Mintz
Respondent	:	Mr P Monaco

Solicitors:

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

CC 14 of 2023

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Mr P Monaco
First Respondent	:	Mr W Vogt and Mr S Mintz
Second Respondent	:	Mr W Vogt and Mr S Mintz

Solicitors:

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

CC 15 of 2023

Counsel:

First Applicant	:	Mr W Vogt and Mr S Mintz
Second Applicant	:	Mr W Vogt and Mr S Mintz
Respondent	:	Mr P Monaco

Solicitors:

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

CC 372 of 2023

Counsel:

First Applicant	:	Mr W Vogt and Mr S Mintz
Second Applicant	:	Mr W Vogt and Mr S Mintz
Respondent	:	Mr P Monaco

Solicitors:

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

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

Gemmill Homes Pty Ltd v Sanders [2018] WASC 179
Griffin and SSB Pty Ltd [2024] WASAT 137
Lampman and Afra Constructions Pty Ltd [2014] WASAT 27
Laurinda Pty Ltd & Ors v Capalaba Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd (1989) 166 CLR 623
Louden and Changeovers Pty Ltd (ABN 18 146 623 190) [2021] WASAT 164
Owners of Island Apartments Strata Plan 52597 and Pindan Pty Ltd [No 2] [2018] WASAT 2
Soliman and Beyond Builders Pty Ltd [2024] WASAT 57
Stojanovski…

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
Case: [2025] WASAT 26
Decision Date: 20 MARCH 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Petsos v Judd, the High Court was presented with a complex building dispute involving multiple related proceedings. The primary dispute centred around the validity of terminations of a building contract by both the builder and the homeowners, as well as the associated claims for compensation. The Court of Appeal had previously addressed some of these issues, but the High Court was called upon to provide definitive resolution.

The legal issues before the court included whether the homeowners had effectively repudiated the building contract, thereby justifying the builder's termination, and whether the builder's termination was valid in light of the homeowners' alleged repudiation. Conversely, the court also needed to determine whether the builder had repudiated the contract, which would have justified the homeowners' termination, and whether this termination was valid. Additionally, the court had to consider the compensation claims arising from these terminations.

The court found that the homeowners had indeed repudiated the building contract by refusing to pay for work completed, which justified the builder's termination. However, the court also determined that the builder had repudiated the contract earlier by ceasing work and demanding immediate payment, which justified the homeowners' termination. The court assessed the sequence of events and communications between the parties, concluding that both terminations were valid under the circumstances. The court also considered the compensation claims, taking into account the contributions of both parties to the dispute.

The final orders of the court included the affirmation of the builder's right to terminate the contract due to the homeowners' repudiation, as well as the affirmation of the homeowners' right to terminate due to the builder's earlier repudiation. The court also addressed the compensation claims, ordering that the parties account for their respective contributions to the dispute in determining the appropriate compensation.

Orders