TOTAL INVESTMENTS PTY LTD and RAPLEY WILKINSON PTY LTD

Total Investments Pty Ltd and Rapley Wilkinson Pty Ltd were involved in a dispute that was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The matter centred around a complaint about the workmanship of Colorbond Steel wall cladding on a residential property. The key issues were whether the builder was the appropriate party to be held liable for the defects when it did not select the material, whether the installation of the material was a regulated building service, whether it was appropriate to deviate from the manufacturer's recommendations, and whether the wall cladding was suitable and fit for purpose.

The court needed to determine if the builder could be held responsible for the workmanship when it did not select the material in question. It also considered if the installation of the wall cladding was a regulated building service, which would implicate the Home Building Act. Further, the court assessed whether it was proper and proficient to depart from the manufacturer's recommendations, and if the wall cladding was suitable and fit for purpose despite the departure. The court found that the builder could be held liable for the workmanship, but only in part, as the departure from the manufacturer's recommendations was not the sole cause of the defect. The court held that the wall cladding was not suitable and fit for purpose, and ordered that the builder make necessary repairs to address the defect.