Legal Research
Cases
VOZZA and HA-DECGROUP PTY. LTD

VOZZA and HA-DECGROUP PTY. LTD

Case [2025] WASAT 83 18 August 2025

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: BUILDING SERVICES (COMPLAINT RESOLUTION AND ADMINISTRATION) ACT 2011 (WA)
CITATION:   VOZZA and HA-DECGROUP PTY. LTD [2025] WASAT 83
MEMBER:   MR E CADE, MEMBER
MR M BENTER, MEMBER
MR J D ORR, SESSIONAL MEMBER

HEARD:   24, 25, 26 AND 27 FEBRUARY 2025
DELIVERED          :   18 AUGUST 2025
FILE NO/S:   CC 1378 of 2023
BETWEEN:   COSIMO VOZZA
First Applicant
JESSICA BOMMARITO
Second Applicant
AND
HA-DECGROUP PTY. LTD
First Respondent
ASTERM PTY LTD
Second Respondent
DANNE ADAM FORTE
Third Respondent
BUILDING RENEWALS PTY LTD
Fourth Respondent

Catchwords:

Building service complaint - HBWC complaints - Identity of builder or builders - One project management agreement and two home building contracts - Undisclosed principal - Misleading and deceptive conduct - Joint and several liability of principal and undisclosed principal

Legislation:

Building Act 2011 (WA), s 9
Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), s 36(1)(a), s 36(1)(b), s 38, s 41(2)(d)(i), s 43(1), s 43(1)(a), s 41(2)(d)(i), s 43(1)
Home Building Contracts Act 1991 (WA), s 3, s 4(3), s 7(1), s 7(1)(b), s 8(4), s 12, s 13(2), s 13(4)(c), s 15A, s 25C(2), Div 2, Sch 1, cl 4, cl 5
Home Building Contracts Regulations 1992 (WA)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 32(2)

Result:

Successful in part

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Applicant	:	In Person
Second Applicant	:	In Person
First Respondent	:	In Person
Second Respondent	:	In Person
Third Respondent	:	In Person
Fourth Respondent	:	In Person

Solicitors:

First Applicant	:	N/A
Second Applicant	:	N/A
First Respondent	:	N/A
Second Respondent	:	N/A
Third Respondent	:	N/A
Fourth Respondent	:	N/A

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

Brooks and Gransden Building Company Pty Ltd [No 2] (Brooks) [2021] WASAT 86
Deshmukh and Distinctive Building Services Pty Ltd [2024] WASAT 15
Gemmill Homes Pty Ltd v Sanders [2018] WASC 179
Highfield Property Investments Pty Ltd v Commercial & Residential Developments (SA) Pty Ltd [No 2] [2012] SASC 191
Hippydayze Pty Ltd and Mener Group Pty Ltd [2019] WASAT 92
Owners of Island Apartments Strata Plan 52597 and Pindan Pty Ltd [2018] WASAT 2
Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 52

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

In 2020 Cosimo Vozza and Jessica Bommarito (together the owners) wished to buy a vacant lot on which to build their family home. In about July of 2020, while they were considering purchasing a vacant lot in Pearsall, Mr Vozza's then employer introduced him to Danne Forte (Mr Forte), the third respondent, as a person who could help to construct a home.
With Mr Forte's assistance the owners eventually purchased a vacant lot in Pearsall and then, also with Mr Forte's assistance, work commenced on their home. Their home was completed on or about 3 March 2023, with a 'Western Australia Practical Completion Certificate' being given to the owners by the first respondent (HaDecGroup Pty Ltd or HDG).
However, the owners claim they…

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 VOZZA and HA-DECGROUP PTY. LTD

Details

AGLC: VOZZA and HA-DECGROUP PTY. LTD [2025] WASAT 83
Case: [2025] WASAT 83
Decision Date: 18 AUGUST 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Vozza and HA-DECGROUP PTY LTD involved a dispute concerning building services complaints and the identity of the builders involved. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, with the parties being Vozza, the home owner, and HA-DECGROUP PTY LTD, the builder. The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the builder had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by not disclosing the identity of the builders and whether the principal and the undisclosed principal could be held jointly and severally liable.

The court found that HA-DECGROUP PTY LTD had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by not disclosing the identity of the builders to Vozza. The court held that the builder had a duty to disclose the identity of the builders to the homeowner, and by not doing so, they had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct. The court also found that the principal and the undisclosed principal could be held jointly and severally liable for the misleading and deceptive conduct. This means that Vozza could seek damages from either or both of the parties.

The court's reasoning was based on the fact that the builder had entered into two contracts with Vozza, one project management agreement and two home building contracts, without disclosing the identity of the builders. The court held that this was misleading and deceptive conduct, as it was not transparent and honest. The court also found that the principal and the undisclosed principal were liable for the conduct of the builder, as they were joint tortfeasors.

The final orders of the court were that HA-DECGROUP PTY LTD and the undisclosed principal were jointly and severally liable for the misleading and deceptive conduct. Vozza was awarded damages for the loss and expenses incurred as a result of the conduct. The court also ordered that HA-DECGROUP PTY LTD disclose the identity of the builders to Vozza. This decision highlights the importance of transparency and honesty in building contracts and the potential liability of undisclosed principals.

Orders