Shami and Teo

Shami and Teo were involved in a legal dispute concerning the proper interpretation of the phrase 'carried out' within sections 36(1), 37(1), and 38(1) of the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA). The case before the court was about whether the individual who performed the tiling work as part of the completion of a dwelling by the owner was the person who 'carried out' that tiling work, a question that arose in the context of a building remedy order made by the Building Commissioner. The dispute required the court to determine the legal issues surrounding the interpretation of 'carried out' and its implications for liability under the Act.

The legal issues at the core of the case were the proper construction of the phrase 'carried out' within the relevant sections of the Act and its application to determine who was responsible for the tiling work in question. The court needed to address whether the owner, who had engaged a tiler to complete the work, was the person who 'carried out' the work, or if the tiler himself was the one who carried out the work. This interpretation was crucial for establishing the proper party to be held accountable under the Act. The court was tasked with applying the rules of statutory interpretation to the language of the Act, viewing it as a whole and considering its purpose.

The court undertook the task of statutory interpretation by examining the text of the relevant provisions in the context of the Act as a whole and its purpose. The court found that the language of the Act, when viewed in the context of its predecessor legislation, indicated that a builder is responsible for faulty workmanship carried out by subcontractors. The court considered the similarity between the language of the repealed provision and the current Act, suggesting an intended operation in a similar manner. The explanatory memorandum was also considered to identify the purpose of the provisions, and a construction that promoted that purpose was preferred. The court concluded that the proper construction of 'carried out' meant that the owner, who engaged the tiler, was the person who carried out the work.

The final orders of the court were not explicitly detailed in the provided text, but it was established that the owner, by engaging the tiler, was deemed to be the person who carried out the tiling work. This interpretation aligned with the purpose of the Act to hold the person responsible for the building service complaint accountable. The court's decision underscored the importance of statutory interpretation in understanding the responsibilities and liabilities under the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA).