THE OWNERS OF 52 MILL POINT ROAD STRATA PLAN 62152 and HANSSEN PTY LTD

The parties involved in this case are the owners of 52 Mill Point Road Strata Plan 62152 and Hanssen Pty Ltd. The dispute concerns the Building Commissioner's refusal to accept a complaint regarding building work. The refusal was based on the claim that the complaint was made out of time. This matter was brought before the State Administrative Tribunal, which was tasked with reviewing the Building Commissioner's decision. The central legal issue revolved around the interpretation of the time limit for making a complaint under the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA). Specifically, the court had to determine when a complaint is considered 'made' and whether an intention to make a complaint is sufficient. The interpretation of sections 5(6) and 6(1) of the Act was crucial in this decision. Additionally, the Tribunal considered its powers under section 92 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) to provide relief from procedural requirements, such as extending or abridging the time limit to make a complaint.

The court examined the language used in the relevant sections of the Act, particularly the words 'accompanied by' and'made'. It concluded that the intention to make a complaint, coupled with the necessary documentation, constituted the complaint being 'made'. The court found that the Building Commissioner's interpretation of the time limit was too rigid and did not align with the legislative intent. The Tribunal's decision hinged on the notion that relief from procedural requirements could be granted to ensure fairness and justice in individual cases. Consequently, the court granted the application for leave to review the Building Commissioner's decision, allowing the complaint to proceed despite the timing issue. This ruling underscored the importance of a flexible approach to statutory time limits in the context of building complaints.

In light of the court's findings, it was determined that the complaint could proceed, as the Tribunal had the authority to grant relief from procedural requirements. The court's decision emphasized the need for a balanced interpretation of statutory provisions, taking into account the underlying objectives of the legislation. By granting relief, the Tribunal upheld the principles of fairness and justice in the resolution of building complaints. The final orders of the court confirmed the allowance of the complaint and directed the Building Commissioner to accept and process the complaint on its merits. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of a nuanced approach to statutory interpretation and the role of tribunals in providing relief from procedural requirements to ensure just outcomes.