VENTURA HOME GROUP PTY LTD and COX
[2025] WASAT 123
•4 NOVEMBER 2025
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: BUILDING SERVICES (COMPLAINT RESOLUTION AND ADMINISTRATION) ACT 2011 (WA)
CITATION: VENTURA HOME GROUP PTY LTD and COX [2025] WASAT 123
MEMBER: JUDGE F VERNON, DEPUTY PRESIDENT
HEARD: 15 SEPTEMBER 2025
DELIVERED : 18 SEPTEMBER 2025
PUBLISHED : 4 NOVEMBER 2025
FILE NO/S: CC 462 of 2025
BETWEEN: VENTURA HOME GROUP PTY LTD
Applicant
AND
TIMOTHY COX
First Respondent
YULIA COX
Second Respondent
BUILDING COMMISSIONER
Third Respondent
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Intervenor
Catchwords:
Interlocutory application - Application for a stay of the operation of a building remedy order - Application to adjourn review proceedings while Supreme Court proceedings are on foot
Legislation:
Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), s 37
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 25(2), s 32(5), s 32(7)(e)
Result:
Application for a stay of the operation of a building remedy order granted upon provision of an undertaking
Application for an adjournment of the proceedings dismissed
Programming orders made
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Applicant | : | Mr M Sims SC and Mr L Swanson |
| First Respondent | : | Mr W Vogt |
| Second Respondent | : | Mr W Vogt |
| Third Respondent | : | Ms J Shaw SC |
| Intervenor | : | Ms J Shaw SC |
Solicitors:
| Applicant | : | Hotchkin Hanly |
| First Respondent | : | Vogt Legal |
| Second Respondent | : | Vogt Legal |
| Third Respondent | : | State Solicitor's Office |
| Intervenor | : | State Solicitor's Office |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
J-Corp Pty Ltd and McCutcheon [2025] WASAT 121
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Introduction
By an application dated 4 July 2025, Ventura Home Group Pty Ltd (applicant) applied for review of a Building Remedy Order (a BRO) made on 6 June 2025 under s 37 of the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA) (Building Services Act) by a delegate of the Building Commissioner in relation to a home owned by Timothy Cox and Yulia Cox (respondents), being BRO O2025-8 (the BRO).
The BRO requires the applicant, amongst other things, to conduct a full home re-pipe of Typlex piping installed by the applicant in the respondents' house.
The pipes in the respondents' house have various names in the documents before me, including Typlex, Pro-Fit, and Iplex pipes. In these reasons I will call them 'the pipes'.
The applicant is a company in the BGC group of companies (BGC Group).
By an application dated 18 August 2025, the applicant applied for interlocutory orders, as follows:
(a)staying the operation of the BRO pending further order of the Tribunal, pursuant to s 25(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (SAT Act); and
(b)adjourning the proceeding pending further order of the Tribunal, pursuant to s 32(5) or, alternatively, s 32(7)(e) of the SAT Act;
(together, the applications).
The applications were heard at the same time as identical applications in three other matters,[1] each concerning a BRO in similar terms to the BRO requiring either the applicant or another company in the BGC Group, J-Corp Pty Ltd, to conduct a full home re-pipe (amongst other things) of houses owned by the respondents in those proceedings. Separate reasons have been delivered in those matters. These reasons refer to the reasons given in J-Corp Pty Ltd and McCutcheon & Ors[2] (J-Corp and McCutcheon), being J-Corp Pty Ltd and McCutcheon [2025] WASAT 121 (J-Corp and McCutcheon reasons).
[1] J-Corp Pty Ltd and Janice McCutcheon & Ors, CC 430 of 2025 (J-Corp and McCutcheon proceedings); Ventura Home Group Pty Ltd and Simon Bosnich & Ors, CC 459 of 2025; Ventura Home Group Pty Ltd and Jamie Wright & Ors, CC 480 of 2025 (Ventura Home Group and Wright proceedings).
[2] CC 430 of 2025.
The principal basis on which the stay was sought was to ensure that the applicant is not required to carry out the work required under the BRO before the proceedings for review of the decision to make the BRO (review proceedings) have been determined.
The adjournment was sought to delay the review proceedings until determination of the applicant's application in the Supreme Court, commenced on 13 June 2025, for judicial review of the decision of a delegate of the Building Commissioner to make a BRO relating to the pipes installed in a house that is not the subject of any of the four applications before me (Supreme Court proceedings).
The respondents and the intervenor opposed the application for an adjournment. The respondents also opposed the application for a stay. The intervenor did not oppose the stay.
On 18 September 2025, I decided to make orders in the terms set out at the conclusion of these reasons (Orders), in summary, to:
(a)grant the application to stay the operation of the BRO until further order of the Tribunal, upon the applicant providing the respondents with an undertaking as to damages in the form set out in the Orders;
(b)refuse the application for an adjournment of the review proceedings; and
(c)program the review proceedings to a directions hearing to progress the matter to a hearing.
On 18 September 2025, I said that I would produce written reasons for my decision to make the Orders. These are those reasons.
Where I have incorporated paragraphs from the J-Corp and McCutcheon reasons into these reasons, references to the applicant in those paragraphs are to be read as a reference to the applicant in this matter and a reference to the respondents in those paragraphs is to be read as a reference to the respondents in this matter.
Evidence
In determining the applications, I have had reference to the following affidavits:
(a)the affidavit of Adam Casotti sworn on 18 August 2025. Mr Casotti is a registered building contractor and an employee of BGC Group involved in the managing, investigating and coordinating of BGC Group's response to plumbing failures relating to the pipes;
(b)the affidavit of Luke Swanson, sworn on 18 August 2025. Mr Swanson is a partner of the firm of lawyers acting for the applicant;
(c)the affidavit of the first respondent, Timothy Cox, affirmed on 10 September 2025;
(d)the affidavit of Lilly Deluca affirmed on 11 September 2025. Ms Deluca is a lawyer employed by the firm of lawyers acting for the applicant; and
(e)the affidavit of Aleksandra Miller affirmed on 12 September 2025. Ms Miller is a lawyer employed by the State Solicitor's Office, acting for the intervenor.
In addition, I have had reference to documents attached to Mr Swanson's affidavits sworn in two of the other three applications before me, namely:
(a)attachments LFS 21 to LFS 35 to Mr Swanson's affidavit sworn on 1 August 2024, being copies of court documents filed in the Supreme Court proceedings and proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia, and a copy of the Government Gazette published on 12 November 2024 containing the Western Australian Plumbing Failure Policy 2024;[3] and
(b)attachment LFS 12, attached to Mr Swanson's affidavit sworn on 18 August 2025 being an amended application filed in the Supreme Court proceedings dated 8 August 2025.[4]
[3] Filed in the J-Corp and McCutcheon proceedings.
[4] Filed in the Ventura Home Group and Wright proceedings.
Principles
The respondent's counsel's submissions were largely consistent with the submissions filed by the first and second respondents in J-Corp and McCutcheon. The applicant's submissions applied equally across all four of the matters before me.
Accordingly, the matters referred to in [14] to [29] of the reasons in J‑Corp and McCutcheon apply equally to the applications in this matter and I incorporate what is said in those paragraphs into these reasons.
What is said in [30] to [31] applies equally to the applications in this matter and for those reasons, in my view, the most appropriate approach is to consider the applications together.
In light of the relevant factors in relation to both the application for a stay and the application for an adjournment, these reasons proceed with a consideration of the following factors:
(a)the statutory framework;
(b)any prejudice to the applicant if a stay, or an adjournment, is not granted, the latter of which includes consideration of the prospects of success in the Supreme Court Proceedings;
(c)any prejudice to the respondents if a stay, or an adjournment, is granted, which includes consideration of the impact of delay;
(d)whether there is a serious question to be determined in the review proceedings;
(e)the public interest;
(f)the impact of an adjournment on the Tribunal's objectives; and
(g)where the balance of convenience lies.
What I say in these reasons should not be construed as findings of fact. In so far as I express views on the relative strength of the parties' positions on various issues, they are not more than preliminary views, based on untested evidence.
Statutory framework
What is said in the J-Corp and McCutcheon reasons at [35] to [41], about the statutory framework, applies equally to this matter and I incorporate those paragraphs into these reasons.
Prejudice to the applicant if the review proceedings are not adjourned
What is said in the J-Corp and McCutcheon reasons at [42] to [63], about the applicant's prejudice if the review proceedings are not adjourned, applies equally to this matter and I incorporate those paragraphs into these reasons.
Prejudice to the applicant if the stay is not granted
What is said in the J-Corp and McCutcheon reasons at [64] and [65] applies equally to this matter and I incorporate those paragraphs into these reasons.
The BRO requires that the applicant conduct a full re-pipe of the respondents' house within 6 months of 6 June 2025, that is by 6 December 2025. It is not in dispute that this goes beyond the work that the applicant has been doing and says it will continue to do.
Mr Casotti says in his affidavit that BGC Group has been performing damage repair where there have been burst pipe events, and ceiling re‑pipes, on a voluntary basis. Mr Casotti says that the applicant has not performed a full home re-pipe of the respondents' house, but that a ceiling re-pipe was performed in December 2024. On his evidence, in order to complete the full re-pipe required by the BRO, the applicant must remove and replace the remaining pipes in the laundry, the kitchen, a scullery, two powder rooms, the bath, an ensuite, and a water closet.
On Mr Casotti's evidence, based on re-pipe work the BGC Group has undertaken on six houses, a complete re-pipe takes 12 to 14 weeks to complete if the occupiers move out of their home while the work is being done, and 14 to 16 weeks if they do not do so. Accordingly, Mr Casotti says that there is a risk that the complete re-pipe of the respondents' house will not be complete by 6 December 2025 if the re‑pipe work is not commenced by the beginning of September 2025. That deadline had passed as at the date of the hearing before me.
Accordingly, on Mr Casotti's evidence, there is a real risk that the required work would not be completed by 6 December 2025 in any event.
What is said in the J-Corp and McCutcheon reasons at [70] to [78] about the applicant's prejudice if a stay is not granted applies equally in this matter and I incorporate those paragraphs into these reasons.
Prejudice to the respondents if the stay or adjournment are granted
Potential financial and emotional impacts of delay
What is said in the J-Corp and McCutcheon reasons at [79] about the applicant's concession concerning the effect of delay on the respondents applies equally in this matter and I incorporate that paragraph into these reasons.
In his affidavit of 10 September 2025, the first respondent, Mr Cox, describes the ongoing detrimental effect of the repeated burst pipes that have already occurred, and the fear of further burst pipes. He says that he has suffered 13 burst pipes in a period of 3 years with the first occurring on 1 September 2022 and the latest on 28 June 2025.
Mr Cox complains that his water pressure is reduced in an attempt to limit further pipe failures, which reduces the amenity of his home.
Mr Cox says that his home underwent a ceiling re-pipe in December 2024 but suffered a further wall pipe bursts in April and June 2025.
Mr Cox says that, in its current state, he and his wife cannot sell their house without costly remediation or accepting a significant discount in the price.
Mr Cox says that the leaks have caused stress, anxiety and disruption for his family, with water leaks causing electrical faults, repeated exposure to black mould, a daily practice of turning the water off as they leave the house and living in construction conditions when repairs are being undertaken. He says that he has spent over 1,000 hours of the respondents' personal time coordinating remediation work. He is concerned about the health impacts of the flooding.
There is no challenge to this evidence. I accept that the respondents have suffered adverse financial consequences as a result of the ongoing problem of pipes bursting.
I also accept that there is an emotional toll where a person has experienced numerous burst pipes and has to live with the risk that other pipes may burst at any time, and with the disruption to their normal lives in a house where building work is repeatedly being undertaken to replace burst pipes. I accept that there may be health risks associated with the flooding that results from a burst pipe event.
However, I do not accept that the stay will cause the respondents hardship that cannot be alleviated to some extent by the terms of the stay. Whilst the history suggests that there is a risk of a burst pipe event before a hearing, if the BRO is stayed, that may not occur.
In addition, I also find that the work that has been done to date has reduced the risk to some extent, given the replacement of a portion of the allegedly defective pipes.
The financial risks attached to delay, if not the emotional consequences, may be alleviated to some extent by conditioning the order for a stay on the provision of an undertaking as to damages. As I have said, the applicant did not oppose providing such an undertaking.
Length of the delay
What is said in the J-Corp and McCutcheon reasons at [88] to [90] about the delay if a stay is ordered but not an adjournment, and in [91] to [94] about the delay if there is a stay and an adjournment, applies equally in this matter and I incorporate those paragraphs into these reasons.
Prospects of success in the review proceedings
What is said in the J-Corp and McCutcheon reasons at [95] to [98] about the applicant's prospects of success in the review proceedings applies equally in this matter, save that the reference at [96] of those reasons to 'the applicant and Ventura' should be read as 'the applicant and J-Corp'. With that amendment, I incorporate those paragraphs into these reasons.
Public Interest considerations
What is said in the J-Corp and McCutcheon reasons at [99] to [102] about the public interest considerations applies equally in this matter, and I incorporate those paragraphs into these reasons.
Impact on the Tribunal's objectives
What is said in the J-Corp and McCutcheon reasons at [103] to [105] about the impact of the applications on the Tribunal's objectives applies equally in this matter, and I incorporate those paragraphs into these reasons.
Balance of convenience
What is said in the J-Corp and McCutcheon reasons at [106] to [107] about the balance of relevant factors, or the balance of convenience, applies equally in this matter, and I incorporate those paragraphs into these reasons.
Other matters
What is said in the J-Corp and McCutcheon reasons at [108] to [117] applies equally in this matter, and I incorporate those paragraphs into these reasons.
Conclusion
For the reasons referred to above, I have determined that it is desirable to order a stay of the operation of the BRO subject to the provision of an undertaking by the applicant and to dismiss the application for an adjournment of the review proceedings. I have also decided it appropriate to make orders programming the review proceedings to a directions hearing, as set out below.
Orders
The orders made on 18 September 2025 were as follows:
The Tribunal orders:
1.Pursuant to section 25(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) the operation of the Building Remedy Order O2025-8 made by the Building Commissioner against the applicant on 6 June 2025 is stayed pending further order of the Tribunal, upon the applicant making a written undertaking as to damages in the following terms and lodging that undertaking with the Tribunal.
Ventura Home Group Pty Ltd hereby undertakes to the Tribunal to pay to any party restrained or affected by the Tribunal's order dated 18 September 2025 staying the operation of Building Remedy Order O2025-8 pending further order of the Tribunal such compensation as the Tribunal may in its discretion consider in the circumstances to be just, such compensation to be assessed by the Tribunal or in accordance with such directions as the Tribunal may make and to be paid in such manner as the Tribunal may direct.
2.A copy of any undertaking lodged pursuant to order 1 is to be served on the parties.
3.The parties have liberty to apply in relation to order 1 on giving 48 hours notice to the Tribunal and the parties.
4.The applicant's application dated 18 August 2025 to adjourn the proceeding is dismissed.
5.The matter is listed for a directions hearing at 10.30 am on Wednesday, 24 September 2025, at 565 Hay Street, Perth, Western Australia.
6.By 4 pm on Monday, 22 September 2025, the parties must file with the Tribunal and give to the other parties proposed orders to program the proceeding to a final hearing and their unavailable dates for a final hearing in November and December 2025, and January and February 2026.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
FB
Associate to the Deputy President Judge Vernon
4 NOVEMBER 2025
0