BRYANT and COAST EDGE PTY LTD [2026] WASAT 85
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 1
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT : BUILDING SERVICES (COMPLAINT
RESOLUTION AND ADMINISTRATION) ACT
2011 (WA)
CITATION : BRYANT and COAST EDGE PTY LTD [2026]
WASAT 85
MEMBER : MS N OLDFIELD, MEMBER
MR D MOROLLA, SESSIONAL MEMBER
HEARD : 24 AND 25 FEBRUARY 2026
FINAL SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED ON 28 APRIL
AND 6 MAY 2026
DELIVERED : 16 JULY 2026
FILE NO/S : CC 623 of 2024
BETWEEN : MARK BRYANT
First Applicant
PATCHARAPORN BRYANT
Second Applicant
AND
COAST EDGE PTY LTD
Respondent
FILE NO/S : CC 787 of 2024
BETWEEN : COAST EDGE PTY LTD
Applicant
AND
MARK BRYANT
-- 1 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 2
First Respondent
PATCHARAPORN BRYANT
Second Respondent
FILE NO/S : CC 168 of 2025
BETWEEN : MARK BRYANT
First Applicant
PATCHARAPORN BRYANT
Second Applicant
AND
COAST EDGE PTY LTD
Respondent
Catchwords:
Home building work contract complaints - Contract terms - Allegations of oral
variations - Non-compliance with plans - Non-payment of invoices - Whether
breach of home building work contract - Basis for home building work contract
remedy order - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA),
s 3, s 5(2), s 11(1)(d), s 41(2), s 41(2)(c), s 43(1), s 43(1)(a), s 43(1)(b)
Home Building Contracts Act 1991 (WA), s 17
Result:
Applications partly successful.
Category: B
-- 2 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 3
Representation:
CC 623 of 2024
Counsel:
First Applicant : Mr W McDonald
Second Applicant : Mr W McDonald
Respondent : Mr M Lang
Solicitors:
First Applicant : Focused Legal
Second Applicant : Focused Legal
Respondent : Lang Litigation and Construction Law
CC 787 of 2024
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr M Lang
First Respondent : Mr W McDonald
Second Respondent : Mr W McDonald
Solicitors:
Applicant : Lang Litigation and Construction Law
First Respondent : Focused Legal
Second Respondent : Focused Legal
CC 168 of 2025
Counsel:
First Applicant : Mr W McDonald
Second Applicant : Mr W McDonald
Respondent : Mr M Lang
Solicitors:
First Applicant : Focused Legal
Second Applicant : Focused Legal
-- 3 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 4
Respondent : Lang Litigation and Construction Law
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Dumbreck and Tangent Nominees Pty Ltd [2017] WASAT 88
Jennings and Howitt [2019] WASAT 133
-- 4 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 5
Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 7
Issues to be determined.......................................................................................................... 7
Legislative framework ........................................................................................................... 7
Characterisation of the complaints ........................................................................................ 8
Expert evidence ..................................................................................................................... 8
Assumption of the parties ...................................................................................................... 9
Relevant allegations and facts ............................................................................................... 9
The agreement regarding construction ............................................................................ 10
Damp proof course .......................................................................................................... 13
Roof beams ...................................................................................................................... 13
Storeroom ........................................................................................................................ 14
Kitchen ............................................................................................................................ 15
Nib walls ...................................................................................................................... 15
Bulkhead ...................................................................................................................... 16
Swapping the sink and hotplate ................................................................................... 16
Cabinet arrangement .................................................................................................... 18
Invoices ........................................................................................................................ 20
Bathrooms........................................................................................................................ 21
Wall tiling .................................................................................................................... 21
Shower screen .............................................................................................................. 21
End of construction .......................................................................................................... 22
Additional findings .......................................................................................................... 22
What was the contract? ........................................................................................................ 24
CC 623/2024 - complaint by Mr and Ms Bryant ................................................................. 26
Item 1 - external walls ..................................................................................................... 26
Parties' evidence and submissions ............................................................................... 26
Characterisation of the complaint ................................................................................ 29
Our conclusions ........................................................................................................... 29
Item 2 - kitchen ................................................................................................................ 30
Item 5 - roof space ........................................................................................................... 32
Item 7 - quotation ............................................................................................................ 32
CC 168/2025 - complaint by Mr and Ms Bryant ................................................................. 34
Items 4(a) and 5(a) - bathroom tiling............................................................................... 34
Item 6(a) - kitchen cupboards .......................................................................................... 35
Item 6(c) - kitchen panty and refrigerator void ............................................................... 35
-- 5 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 6
Item 6(d) - kitchen bulkhead ........................................................................................... 35
Item 6(e) - kitchen nib walls ............................................................................................ 35
CC 787/2024 - complaint by Coast Edge ............................................................................ 36
Item 1 - invoice for roof beams ....................................................................................... 36
Item 2 - invoice for storeroom ......................................................................................... 36
Items 3, 4 and 7 - invoices relating to the swap .............................................................. 36
Item 5 - invoice for the rangehood .................................................................................. 37
Item 6 - invoice for the overhead cabinets ...................................................................... 37
Item 8 - invoice for the shower screen ............................................................................ 38
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 38
Orders .................................................................................................................................. 39
-- 6 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 7
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Introduction
1 Mark and Patcharaporn Bryant contracted with Coast Edge Pty
Ltd (Coast Edge) for the construction of a new home. Subsequently
Mr and Ms Bryant lodged two complaints alleging non-compliance
with the plans. Coast Edge also lodged a complaint in relation to the
non-payment of invoices.
Issues to be determined
2 The first issue to be determined is whether the complaints of
Mr and Ms Bryant allege both breach of contract and defects in
building work, or only breach of contract.
3 If the complaints concern only breach of contract, the issues to be
determined are as follows:
(a) Have Mr and Ms Bryant or Coast Edge breached their
contractual obligations?
(b) If the answer to (a) is yes, did that breach cause the other party
to suffer loss and damage which can be addressed by a Home
building work contract (HBWC) remedy order?
4 The allegations by Mr and Ms Bryant are contained in their
complaints which form the basis of CC 623/2024 and CC 168/2025.
The allegations by Coast Edge are comprised in CC 787/2024.
Legislative framework
5 An owner or builder may complain to the Building Commissioner
about a breach of a home building work contract - s 5(2) of the Building
Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA)
(BSCRA Act) and s 17 of the Home Building Contracts Act 1991
(WA) (HBC Act). This does not include breaches which could be the
subject of a building service complaint.
6 A complaint pursuant to s 5(2) is called a HBWC complaint -
s 3 of the BSCRA Act.
7 The Building Commissioner may refer the complaint to the
Tribunal - s 11(1)(d) of the BSCRA Act.
-- 7 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 8
8 The Tribunal may make a HBWC remedy order if it is satisfied
such an order is justified - s 43(1) of the BSCRA Act. Or it can decline
to make a HBWC order.
9 A HBWC remedy order may include an order that a specified
amount is payable or not payable under the contract, requiring
specified work to be done and for the payment of specified
compensation for loss or damage caused by a breach of the contract - s
41(2) of the BSCRA Act.
Characterisation of the complaints
10 The complaint of Coast Edge in each item seeks orders that
Mr and Ms Bryant pay invoices which it claims are unpaid.
The alleged obligation of Mr and Ms Bryant to pay those invoices
arises pursuant to the terms of the contract between them.
Therefore, each item is clearly a HBWC complaint.
11 In our view, each of the items of complaint of Mr and Ms Bryant
are in the nature of HBWC complaints rather than building service
complaints. Our reasons are set out in relation to each complaint item.
Expert evidence
12 During the final hearing, expert evidence was provided by
Mr Nima Foomani on behalf of Mr and Ms Bryant and by Mr James
Beagley and Mr Christopher Steele on behalf of Coast Edge.
13 Mr Foomani is a structural engineer employed by
Engenuity Engineering. Mr Foomani has not attended the site.
Another person, Mr Peter Pummell, attended the site on 25 July 2025.
Mr Pummell wrote a report which was reviewed and checked by
Mr Foomani (the Engenuity report). There is no evidence of
Mr Pummell's qualifications or experience.
14 The Engenuity report states '[t]he review undertaken has been of
a high-level general review only and does not include any calculations,
so the basis of these findings shall be considered with this in mind'.1
15 Mr Beagley is a registered building practitioner and contractor.
He provides building inspection services under the name
Beagley Building. Mr Beagley wrote two reports dated 25 February
1 Exhibit 1, page 173.
-- 8 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 9
2025 and 23 October 2025. It appears he attended the site for the
purposes of the first report.
16 Mr Steele is a registered building surveying practitioner and
director of Specialised Building Solutions. Mr Steele wrote a report
dated 14 October 2025 which provided advice regarding the application
of the National Construction Code as it stood prior to 1 May 2025.
His report stated that he had not attended the site and did not express an
opinion as to whether the building complied with the relevant building
standards.
Assumption of the parties
17 In the next section we summarise the parties' evidence (and some
of our findings) regarding the formation of the agreement between the
parties.
18 It is not disputed that the parties engaged in the preparation of
written documents which falsely represented the details of their
agreement. The purpose for doing so was apparently to mislead
a financial institution and cause it to offer finance to Mr and Ms Bryant.
19 Neither party suggested their agreement might have been
unenforceable by reason of illegality and this decision proceeds on the
assumption the construction contract is valid and enforceable by both
parties as against the other.
20 However, their apparent willingness to mislead caused us to have
some reservations in relying upon the truthfulness of the testimony of
Mr and Ms Bryant and Mr Whitlock.
Relevant allegations and facts
21 Our findings as to the relevant factual background are as follows.
Unless indicated otherwise, they are agreed or uncontentious. In this
decision, where we make findings of fact, we do so on the balance of
probabilities.
22 Mr and Ms Bryant are the registered proprietors of the relevant
land (the site).
23 Coast Edge is a registered building contractor. Mr Kim Whitlock
operates Coast Edge and is himself a registered building practitioner.
Evidence of Mr Whitlock's precise role was lacking, however there was
no dispute he has authority to act on behalf of Coast Edge.
-- 9 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 10
24 In 2021 Mr and Ms Bryant caused plans to be prepared for a
construction of a new house on the site (the house). The construction
plans are dated 13 September 2021 (the construction plans). The first
draft of the engineering plans was dated 2 September 2021 and the
plans were issued for construction on 5 April 2023 (the engineering
plans). The September engineering plans are not in evidence.
The agreement regarding construction
25 In late July 2022 Mr Bryant sought from Mr Whitlock a quotation
for construction of the house. On 13 August 2022, Mr Whitlock
provided Mr Bryant a two-page letter quoting a total price of
$365,530.2
26 Mr and Ms Bryant were unable to obtain finance based on that
quotation.
27 Mr Whitlock states changes to the contract pricing were discussed
between him and Mr Bryant and Mr Bryant's broker on approximately
seven occasions. Mr Whitlock said he prepared at least three revised
documents. Mr Bryant states he discussed changes to the contract
pricing on one occasion. It is not necessary for us to make
a determination regarding the number of times the price or works were
revised.
28 The parties agree and we are satisfied there was an arrangement
that Coast Edge would provide a quotation including works which were
never intended to be performed by Coast Edge in order to meet the
requirements of the institution providing finance to Mr Bryant.
Pursuant to this arrangement, Coast Edge sent another quotation to
Mr and Ms Bryant, who then obtained finance approval.
29 Two quotations are in evidence. We make no finding as to
whether or not they are the only quotations produced. Both quotations
are dated 3 August 2022. Both quotations include (in the description of
works to be performed) the words '[w]et areas ensuite & bathroom tiled
to ceiling'.3
30 The quotations are identical, save for the following:
2 In this decision, all monetary amounts are inclusive of GST unless otherwise stated.
3 Exhibit 1, pages 318 and 320.
-- 10 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 11
(a) The quotation for a total price of $365,530 (the lower quote)
included:4
Tiling
Allowance for tiles $45 per met[re]
Carpet allowance $4,500
(b) The quotation for a total price of $373,780 (the higher quote)
included:5
Tiling
Allowance for tiles $45 per met[re]
Carpet allowance $4,500
Window treatments [a]llowance $2,500
Fencing [a]llowance $5,000
31 Mr Bryant alleges:
(a) At a time between 13 August 2022 and 11 November 2022, he
told Mr Whitlock the financial institution wanted window
treatments and fences included in the quotation. He told
Mr Whitlock to add them to the quotation document, but that he
would 'put them in myself'.6 Mr Whitlock agreed.
(b) He and Mr Whitlock did not discuss limiting wall tiling of the
wet areas.
32 Mr Whitlock alleges:
(a) In early December 2022 (after 5 December 2022), he and
Mr Bryant agreed to increase the scope of works to meet the
requirements of the financial institution, including floor and
window treatments, internal and external painting and floor to
ceiling bathroom tiling.
(b) The total cost of the additional works should have been
$20,000. Mr and Ms Bryant were not in a position to pay this
amount.
4 Exhibit 1, page 319.
5 Exhibit 10B, page 32.
6 Exhibit 10A, page 3.
-- 11 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 12
(c) He and Mr Bryant agreed to increase the total price by $10,000
on the basis:
(i) Mr Bryant would install window treatments and fencing;
and
(ii) wall tiling 'would only be to full height in the shower'.7
33 Mr Bryant alleges finance was approved on 12 November 2022.
Mr Whitlock alleges Coast Edge was informed of finance approval on
or about 6 April 2023. We make no finding regarding these claims.
34 On 3 February 2023 Mr and Ms Bryant signed a standard-form
Master Builders Western Australia contract for the construction of
a new home at the site for a total price of $373,780 (construction
contract). The contract was countersigned by Coast Edge on
5 February 2023.
35 Relevant to the construction contract are two specification
documents. One, described as the specification for the site, is undated
but forms part of the Certificate of Design Compliance dated 12 April
2023 (undated specification). It includes the statement that wall tiles
are to be laid to a minimum of the floor skirting in wet areas, unless
otherwise directed by the owner.
36 The other is called 'Construction Specification (Framed)' and was
signed by Mr Whitlock and Ms Bryant on 8 March 2023 (March
specification).8 That document includes a list of items which are
marked applicable or not applicable. Where the item is marked
applicable, further details appear to have been inserted underneath.
For example:
(a) fences are marked 'applicable' and directly underneath appears
the line, 'Details Metal [S]tra[t]co [neighbourhood] fencing';9
(b) linen, pantry and other cupboards are marked 'applicable' and
underneath provides the pantry is to have 4 shelves;10
(c) glass shower screens are marked 'not applicable';11 and
7 Exhibit 12, page 5.
8 Exhibit 14.
9 Exhibit 14, page 4.
10 Exhibit 14, page 6.
11 Exhibit 14, page 9.
-- 12 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 13
(d) wall and floor tiling is marked 'applicable' and directly
underneath is a list of the area to be tiled in various rooms.12
In each bathroom, the wall area to be tiled is said to be 4m2,
there is no entry for floor tiling in the kitchen and no entry for
wall or floor tiling in the water closet. The line 'PS ($/m2)' is
left blank for wall and floor tiling.13
37 A building permit was granted in May 2023 and building
commenced soon after.
Damp proof course
38 A detail in the engineering plans requires a damp proof course
(DPC) to be installed between the concrete slab and the timber plate
forming the base of the timber wall framing.
39 The DPC was not installed by Coast Edge.
Roof beams
40 In or about August 2023, roof carpenter Kaleb Cockburn raised
a concern with Coast Edge regarding the roof beams for the house.
In a meeting at the site, Mr Cockburn and Mr Whitlock agreed that the
roof over the main living areas was not sufficiently supported.
A meeting then took place between Mr Whitlock, Mr Bryant,
Mr Cockburn and Mr Whitlock's son Mr Daniel Whitlock.
41 Mr Whitlock alleges he tried to call the engineer who had prepared
the engineering plans for the house, but the engineer did not answer or
return his call.
42 Mr Whitlock alleges that he, Mr D Whitlock and Mr Cockburn
explained the problem regarding the roof and the estimated likely cost
to Mr Bryant, and Mr Bryant gave verbal approval. On that basis of
that approval, Mr Whitlock says he personally travelled to Perth to
purchase two additional beams and transported them to the site.
Those beams were then installed.
43 Mr D Whitlock agrees with his father's account. Mr Cockburn
claims that he and Mr Whitlock discussed with Mr Bryant the addition
12 Exhibit 14, page 8.
13 Exhibit 14, page 8.
-- 13 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 14
of two additional beams and 'it was agreed that we would add them
in'.14
44 Mr Bryant agrees a meeting took place with Mr Whitlock and
Mr Cockburn. He claims he did not agree to the proposal but directed
Mr Whitlock to call his engineer. He also claims there was no
discussion regarding the cost of the beams.
45 Coast Edge invoice 0171 dated 15 May 2024 claims $3,080 in
relation to the installation of two additional structural beams. Mr and
Ms Bryant have not paid this amount.
46 We are satisfied the evidence establishes there was a meeting on
site between Mr Bryant, Mr Whitlock and Mr Cockburn and as a result
two additional beams were installed in the roof of the house. Is it not
necessary to determine whether or not Mr D Whitlock was also present
at that meeting. Further findings are detailed at paragraph [103] below.
Storeroom
47 In or about September 2023 Mr and Ms Bryant asked Coast Edge
to convert part of an overly long walk-in-robe into a storeroom.
The works included an additional wall to create the separate room,
a door to access the space, lighting and shelves along two adjoining
walls.
48 Mr Whitlock and Mr D Whitlock claim they had discussions with
Mr and Ms Bryant regarding the work to be done. Mr Whitlock claims
he verbally quoted a price of $3,564, which was accepted.
Mr D Whitlock claims that Mr and Ms Bryant agreed to pay an
additional cost but could not recall if a specific amount was discussed.
49 Mr Bryant instead claims his discussion was with Mr Whitlock
and Mr Cockburn. He claims the price was not discussed, except that
he asked for a written variation and invoice and they were not provided.
50 Our findings regarding the parties' discussion are detailed at
paragraph [98] below.
51 Coast Edge invoice 0171 dated 15 May 2024 claims $3,564 in
relation to the storeroom. Mr and Ms Bryant have not paid this amount.
14 Exhibit 7, page 3.
-- 14 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 15
Kitchen
52 The floorplan contained in the construction plans (the floorplan)
provided in relation to the kitchen:
(a) a hotplate unit on a kitchen island;
(b) three nib walls at right angles to the kitchen wall, providing four
recesses;
(c) from left to right,15 the recesses are marked refrigerator, oven,
sink and pantry;
(d) a window above the kitchen sink; and
(e) two exhaust fans - one over the hotplate and the other over the
kitchen sink.
Nib walls
53 The nib walls were not installed in accordance with the floorplan
or at all.
54 Mr Whitlock claims that in approximately August 2023 it was
agreed between Mr Bryant and himself that the nib walls would not be
installed to create more space and a more functional kitchen.
Mr Bryant denies this.
55 The engineering plans depict a beam, described as SB2, spanning
the width of the kitchen over the nib walls. The dimensions of SB2 are
given as 190 x 45mm. In the same room, spanning the same distance is
another beam, designated SB1. The dimensions of SB1 are given as
360 x 63 mm.
56 We are satisfied the engineering plans intended SB2 to span the
width of the kitchen and SB2 was smaller than SB1 because SB2 was to
be supported by the nib walls.
57 SB2 was not installed in accordance with the engineering plans.
Mr Whitlock said it was used elsewhere in the house. How or in what
location is unclear.
58 Mr Whitlock and Mr Cockburn claim the only purpose of SB2 was
to support the ceiling and an alternative method was employed to
15 From the perspective of facing the kitchen wall from inside the kitchen.
-- 15 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 16
support the ceiling in the house. Neither alleged there was an oral
agreement with the Bryants for the relocation or removal of SB2.
59 In the absence of corroborating evidence, we do not accept
Mr Whitlock's allegations regarding an agreement for the
non-installation of the nib walls. We prefer the floorplan, which is part
of the contract between the parties.
Bulkhead
60 Mr and Ms Bryant allege there should have been a bulkhead
installed above the nib walls. Mr Whitlock denies that a bulkhead was
required by the plans or subsequent verbal variations.
61 We are satisfied the kitchen elevation in the construction plans
depicts a bulkhead attached to the kitchen wall and ceiling above.
We are also satisfied the floorplan indicates the nib walls were to sit
below the bulkhead.
62 We do not understand Coast Edge to allege there had been an
agreement to omit the bulkhead. Mr Whitlock's statement that the plans
did not require a bulkhead suggest the bulkhead was never discussed.
We are therefore satisfied there was no agreement regarding the
non-installation of the bulkhead.
Swapping the sink and hotplate
63 In late November or early December 2023 Mr and Ms Bryant
requested the kitchen sink and hotplates be swapped, so that the sink
was in the island bench and the hotplates against the kitchen wall (the
swap).
64 There was a meeting between Mr and Ms Bryant, Mr Whitlock
and plumber Mr Michael Sullivan on the site. Mr Sullivan told
Mr Bryant the swap would require following works:
(a) cutting the concrete slab from the external wall to the island
bench to supply water to the sink;
(b) conversion of the sleeve (which had been intended to supply gas
to the island bench) to be the wastewater pipe from the sink;
(c) running a new wastewater pipe around the house to connect to
the sewer; and
-- 16 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 17
(d) due to the length of the new wastewater pipe, installation of
a vent.
65 Mr Sullivan and Mr Whitlock claim the costs were discussed with
Mr Bryant. They say Mr Bryant instructed the swap to be done, but to
save costs, it was agreed that Mr Bryant would dig the trench for the
new wastewater pipe.
66 In addition, Mr Whitlock claims he advised Mr Bryant the swap
would require:
(a) installation of a rangehood 'to meet regulations';16
(b) installation of overhead cabinets to house the rangehood; and
(c) removal of the window (and recladding the wall) because a
window could not be next to a hot plate.
67 Mr Whitlock claims the costs of the rangehood and removal of the
window were agreed with Mr Bryant, but he did not recall if the cost of
the overhead cabinets was discussed at that time. His understanding is
that Mr and Ms Byrant directed the cabinet-maker to make the
overhead cabinets at a meeting in which he was not present.17
68 Mr Whitlock states the plans did not provide for a rangehood, only
exhaust fans. He does not explain why the swap meant that
a rangehood was required instead of an exhaust fan.
69 In contrast, Mr Bryant claims:
(a) During the on-site meeting, Mr Sullivan asked him to dig the
trench and there was no discussion of the cost of the swap.
(b) He did not know about the rangehood until after it was installed.
There should have been less work installing a rangehood against
the kitchen wall instead of suspended over the island bench.
(c) He and Ms Bryant did not want overhead cupboards, and they
did not know about them until the kitchen cabinetry was being
installed.
(d) He asked that the window not be installed, and at the time none
of the window frame, window glazing or cladding had been
16 Exhibit 12, page 11.
17 See paragraph [74] below.
-- 17 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 18
installed. He considered therefore simply cladding over the
space should have involved less cost than installing a window
on that wall.
70 The floorplan includes a notation, next to the hotplate in the
kitchen island, which reads, 'KUADRA ISLAND RANGEHOOD
ABOVE'.18 The electrical layout in the construction plans includes
a symbol which is defined in the legend to mean 'extractor fan'.19
That symbol is positioned in the electrical layout above the hotplate and
above the kitchen sink. The floorplan and the electrical layout in this
respect are contradictory.
71 We are satisfied there was a meeting between Mr Bryant,
Mr Whitlock and Mr Sullivan regarding the swap. We accept the
evidence of Mr Sullivan regarding the content of those discussions.
Additional findings regarding those matters are contained at paragraphs
[98] to [101] below.
Cabinet arrangement
72 The kitchen cabinets were not installed in accordance with the
floorplan. The recess for the refrigerator is on the far right (instead of
the far left), the refrigerator recess is narrower and initially there was no
pantry.
Discussions
73 After installation, there was a discussion or discussions on the site,
following which Coast Edge installed an on-bench pantry cupboard.
Mr Whitlock states this was a result of the parties' agreement. Mr and
Ms Bryant deny they agreed to the on-bench cupboard. Ms Bryant
states that Mr Whitlock had indicated by gesture he would install
a pantry which extended from the floor to over her head, and that is
what she had agreed with Mr Whitlock.
74 Mr Whitlock alleges:
(a) At the time, Coast Edge sourced all its cabinetry from
Carl Todaro of Downunder Cabinets. It was their practice over
years that:
18 Exhibit 1, page 238.
19 Exhibit 1, page 243.
-- 18 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 19
(i) Mr Todaro would meet directly with each client of
Coast Edge;
(ii) Mr Todaro and the client would go through the
construction plans and draw up detailed plans for
the cabinetry; and
(iii) Mr Todaro would send the cabinetry plans as agreed
with the client to Mr Whitlock.
(b) Downunder Cabinets had been engaged in relation to this matter
in the usual manner.
(c) In or about March 2023 Mr and Ms Bryant travelled to Perth to
make tile and cabinet selections, which involved their meeting
with Mr Todaro. Afterwards Mr and Ms Bryant provided him
with their colour selections and said all the cabinet selections
had been done.
(d) After the cabinets had been delivered to the site, an invoice was
issued to Coast Edge by CDU Installations. It was only then he
discovered that CDU Installations had taken over Downunder
Cabinets. Mr Todaro was not answering his phone. He visited
the former premises of Downunder Cabinets in Osborne Park to
find them permanently closed.
75 Mr Bryant alleges that he and Ms Bryant went to the
cabinet-makers in Osborne Park in about January 2024. They spoke to
a man who did not want to see the construction plans and asked them
simply to choose colours. He told the man the island bench had a space
for a dishwasher and asked if the man could make a set of drawers
to insert into the space. However, he was told they were simply there
to select colours.
76 Ms Bryant alleges they went to a factory in Osborne Park and
were told to pick their colours. Mr Bryant asked a man if he could
make drawers for where the dishwasher had to be, and the man said he
would talk to Mr Whitlock and 'work out with the plans'.20 The man
took a photograph of the plans because they were too large for the
photocopier.
77 In the final hearing, Mr Whitlock conceded he would have
received cabinetry plans for the house from Mr Todaro, in accordance
20 Exhibit 11A, page 2.
-- 19 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 20
with their usual practice. He said he never needed to check
Mr Todaro's plans, he simply assumed they represented the client's
instructions. He said it was unfortunate things had fallen apart. He did
not show Mr and Ms Bryant the cabinetry plans and if they had
discussed with him the cabinetry plans, he had forgotten.
78 Mr Whitlock claims the kitchen is fully functional in its present
state. Mr and Ms Bryant claim they purchased a new refrigerator on
28 March 2024 in the expectation it would be installed on the left side
of the kitchen. Now that it is installed to the right, the wall prevents the
refrigerator door from fully opening and the refrigerator prevents a door
from fully opening. Mr and Ms Bryant also allege the kitchen cabinets
included a dishwasher void contrary to their wishes.
Our conclusions
79 The cabinets could not have been constructed solely upon the
information contained in the floorplan. We do not find the accounts of
either party persuasive and therefore the evidence is not sufficient for
us to conclude whether Mr and Ms Bryant or Coast Edge gave the
relevant instructions to the cabinet-maker.
80 It is not necessary and so we decline to make findings regarding
the functionality of the kitchen.
81 The presence of the dishwasher void could be outside the ambit of
these proceedings because the complaint items make no reference to it.
In any event, the floorplan does not contain sufficient detail to ascertain
whether or not provision for a dishwasher had been agreed and
accordingly the evidence is insufficient for us to make any findings in
relation to it.
Invoices
82 In relation to the kitchen, Coast Edge issued the following
invoices:
(a) invoice 0171 which in part charged $418 for cutting the
concrete slab for the additional plumbing;
(b) invoice 0172 dated 15 May 2024 totalling $1,852.40, claiming
the amount charged by Sullivans Plumbing and Gas without
a mark-up;
-- 20 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 21
(c) invoice 0188 dated 11 October 2024 totalling $6,028, in relation
to:
(i) removing the kitchen window and recladding the
wall - $1,034;
(ii) the manufacture and installation of the overhead
cabinets - $3,740; and
(iii) installation of the rangehood - $1,254.
83 Mr and Ms Bryant have not paid these amounts.
Bathrooms
Wall tiling
84 The bathroom walls are not tiled floor to ceiling. The walls in the
showers are tiled to a level slightly above where the shower arm
connects to the wall. Otherwise, there is one course of tiles to provide
a floor skirting, one course of tiles above the bathroom vanities and the
surround to the bath is tiled.
Shower screen
85 A shower screen has been installed in the second bathroom.
The floorplan does not include shower screens in either bathroom.
86 Mr Bryant states he and Ms Bryant wanted shower curtains in both
bathrooms and there is no shower screen in the ensuite bathroom.
Mr Bryant states when he observed the shower screen being installed,
he communicated his objection to both the installer and Mr Whitlock.
But nevertheless the installation was completed.
87 Mr Whitlock claims it was necessary to install the shower screen
because the shower is next to the bathroom door. The screen will
prevent water from damaging the door and wall.
88 We are not satisfied the evidence demonstrates there was an
agreement for the installation of the shower screen. We consider the
floorplan and March specification (with which Mr Bryant's evidence is
consistent) more persuasive.
89 Coast Edge initially claimed $1,650 for the installation of the
shower screen, which was contained in invoice 0171 dated 15 May
2024. This amount has not been paid by Mr and Ms Bryant.
-- 21 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 22
During the proceedings, Coast Edge reduced its claim regarding
the shower screen to $781, which was the sum charged by the
subcontractor for the supply and installation of the shower screen.
This sum also has not been paid by Mr and Ms Bryant.
End of construction
90 In August 2024 Mr and Ms Bryant broke into the house and took
possession before handover by Coast Edge.
91 It appears from the evidence of Ms Bryant this may have been
prompted by differences of opinion regarding whether or not the
building works had been completed and Coast Edge declining to hand
over the keys until receiving payment in full. It is not necessary for us
to reach a concluded view on this point.
Additional findings
92 Coast Edge seeks orders for the payment of invoices 171, 172 and
188 which relate to the additional roof beams, swapping the locations
of the kitchen hotplate and sink, removing the kitchen window,
installing in the kitchen overhead cupboards and a rangehood, building
a storeroom and the installation of a shower screen.
93 It was put to Mr Whitlock in the final hearing that
(a) invoices 171, 172 and 188 appeared based not upon a fixed
agreed price but upon the actual costs incurred by Coast Edge;
and;
(b) the out-of-pocket costs could not have been known at the times
he said he had agreed on the cost of works with Mr Bryant.
94 Mr Whitlock agreed. He said that he had provided an estimation
of the costs of works and that Mr Bryant in each instance had agreed
with that estimation.
95 Other than in relation to the storeroom, there was no evidence as
to the amount of any estimation Mr Whitlock provided to Mr Bryant.
96 We find credible a statement by Mr Whitlock that he always
discussed costs with his clients before agreeing to perform additional
works.
97 We do not find credible Mr Bryant's claim that there was no
discussion regarding the cost of the additional beams, the storeroom or
-- 22 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 23
the swapping of the kitchen hotplate and sink. We consider it highly
likely that any owner asking for, or being asked to agree to, substantial
changes would enquire as to the cost of the works. Furthermore, the
evidence regarding the limited financial capacity of Mr and Ms Bryant
suggests they may be even more likely to be concerned regarding the
possibility of escalating costs.
98 For these reasons, we are satisfied Coast Edge disclosed estimated
costs of performing works in relation to the storeroom and the swap and
Mr Bryant agreed to pay those costs. We are also satisfied Mr Bryant
knew the disclosed costs were estimations and therefore the final
invoiced amounts could vary from the estimated sums.
99 We are satisfied there was a discussion between Mr Whitlock and
Mr Bryant regarding the removal of the kitchen window as
a consequence of the swap, and Mr Bryant agreed to pay the costs of
doing so based upon Mr Whitlock's estimation.
100 We are not satisfied there was a similar discussion in relation to
the overhead cabinets and the rangehood. After hearing the parties'
evidence and considering the plans, we consider most likely what
occurred is as follows:
(a) Installation of the rangehood was not raised when the swap was
discussed.
(b) If Mr and Ms Bryant had discussed with Mr Todaro the
installation of overhead cabinets, they did not realise
the implications. Mr Whitlock was not aware overhead cabinets
would be installed because he did not check the cabinetry plans.
(c) After the kitchen cabinets were installed it became evident to
Mr Whitlock a rangehood was necessary, because there could
not be cupboards directly over the hotplate.
101 In turn we consider it likely the rangehood was installed as
a necessity, without prior discussion with Mr Bryant.
102 We note Mr Whitlock's evidence that the design of the kitchen
cabinets was agreed directly between Mr and Ms Bryant and the
cabinet-maker, and that he did not check the cabinetry plans nor discuss
them with the Bryants. We are therefore not satisfied Mr Whitlock
discussed the cost of the overhead cabinets with Mr Bryant.
-- 23 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 24
103 In relation to the additional roof beams, we are satisfied Coast
Edge disclosed the estimated costs. However, we also accept
Mr Bryant's evidence that he asked Coast Edge to contact the
engineer and Mr Whitlock's evidence that he did attempt to contact
the engineer. We infer Mr Bryant's response was contingent upon his
engineer's opinion. We are therefore not satisfied there was an
agreement for the installation of the additional roof beams.
What was the contract?
104 Where there are allegations of a breach of contract, it is necessary
to identify the terms of the contract between the parties.
105 In these proceedings the home building work contract between the
Bryants and Coast Edge is alleged to be comprised of one or more of
the following:
(a) the lower quote;
(b) the higher quote;
(c) the construction contract;
(d) the construction and engineering plans;
(e) the undated specification;
(f) the March specification; and
(g) various discussions said to constitute oral variations of contract.
106 Neither of the lower or higher quotes are of themselves capable of
constituting an agreement for the construction of the house because
essential parts are missing. At most either document would be
a component of a partly written, partly oral contract. Alternatively, the
higher or lower quote might be characterised as pre-contractual terms.
107 Mr and Ms Bryant submitted the higher quote should 'take
priority', but did not explain the legal basis for that approach.21
108 Parties are ordinarily bound by a contract they sign.22 Therefore,
weight must be placed upon the fact the parties signed the construction
contract.
21 Applicants' Submissions regarding Exhibit 14, dated 28 April 2026 at para 6(c).
-- 24 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 25
109 Usually also, any prior agreement is discharged to the extent it is
inconsistent with the later contract.23
110 We consider the lower and higher quotes are inconsistent with
(and thus discharged by) the construction contract for the following
reasons:
(a) Clause 38(c) of the construction contract explicitly states that
the parties' entire agreement is comprised in the documents
called 'Contract Documents'. This term is defined to mean the
construction contract, conditions and special conditions,
particulars, appendices, drawings, specifications and any
incorporated documents.
(b) The construction contract did not specifically refer to
or incorporate the lower and higher quotes. We do not consider
it would be accurate to describe the quotes as conditions and
special conditions, particulars, appendices, drawings or
specifications, nor was it suggested by the parties that we
should. Therefore the lower and higher quotes are not part of
the 'Contract Documents'.
(c) Details contained in the plans and specifications contradict
details in the higher and lower quotes. This means the Contract
Documents are inconsistent with the higher and lower quotes.
(d) The construction contract was executed by the parties after the
date of the higher and lower quotes. Therefore, the construction
contract and its associated documents (together the Contract
Documents) replaced the higher and lower quotes.
111 The parties agreed the construction and engineering plans in
evidence formed part of the construction contract. It was uncontentious
the undated specification also formed part of the construction contract.
112 The March specification was initially omitted from evidence and
was eventually admitted by consent after the final hearing.
We understand the parties agree it forms part of the contract between
the parties, but disagree as to its effect.
22 NC Seddon and RA Bigwood, LexisNexis Australia, Cheshire & Fifoot Law of Contract (12th edition)
(as at 22 June 2026), (Cheshire & Fifoot) at para 3.26.
23 Cheshire & Fifoot at para 10.20 and para 22.5. The effect of the later contract discharging the earlier might
also be described as a termination of the earlier contract by agreement, or recession and substitution.
The distinctions are unimportant in these circumstances.
-- 25 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 26
113 In our view, the March specification forms part of the Contract
Documents. We will consider its effect in the context of relevant
complaint items.
114 The existence or otherwise of oral agreements which varied the
terms of the construction contract are considered in the context of the
relevant complaint items.
CC 623/2024 - complaint by Mr and Ms Bryant
115 This complaint initially comprised nine items. Whilst the matter
was with the Building Commissioner, Mr and Ms Bryant withdrew
item 3. So that item was not referred to the Tribunal.
116 On 11 November 2025 by consent of the parties, the Tribunal
made orders that items 4, 6 and 9 were withdrawn and for remedial
works by Coast Edge in relation to item 8.
117 The remaining items are considered below.
Item 1 - external walls
118 Mr and Ms Bryant complain that the engineering plans required
the installation of a DPC between the concrete floor and the timber wall
plate of the external walls of the house, and the DPC had not been
installed.
Parties' evidence and submissions
119 Mr and Ms Bryant submit the issue is not the omission of the DPC
(as that was agreed), but what to do about it. It was not feasible to lift
the walls to insert a DPC, so the practical solution was to apply the
damp proof treatment recommended by Mr Foomani.
120 Coast Edge submits if it had breached the construction contract
(which is not admitted), the breach was a mere 'technical' breach and
the application of bitumen paint was a sufficient remedy for the breach.
121 The parties agree and thus we are satisfied there is no evidence of
moisture ingress or damage.
-- 26 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 27
122 The Engenuity report noted the absence of the DPC, expressed
concern that '[r]ising damp will eventually rot the timber' and stated
they were 'not aware of a suitable solution'.24
123 Mr Foomani's evidence was that the waterproofing of the timber
bottom plate does not comply with the engineering plans due to the
absence of the DPC. He further believes the works do not comply with
the National Construction Code (NCC) and Australian Standards (AS)
because:
(a) AS2870-2011 Figure 5.2(a) shows a waterproof membrane
under the slab terminating at ground level, which is not evident
in some photographs;
(b) AS1684 Figure B.2(c) shows a flashing or DPC between the
bottom plate and the concrete slab; and
(c) given the above, using H3 treated timber is insufficient for
moisture protection.
124 Mr Foomani considers the bitumen paint applied by Coast Edge
was not sufficient to replace the DPC and recommends a damp proof
treatment (comprising a primer and a minimum of two coats) be applied
to cover all vertical sides of the concrete slab, 20 mm under the slab, all
45 degree angles of the slab and all mounting plates and that there be
a suitable termination detail to prevent moisture entering behind the
membrane.
125 Mr Beagley and Mr Steele both believe the building complies with
the current requirements of the NCC and AS because:
(a) Neither the NCC or AS require a moisture barrier to be installed
as set out in the engineering plans. AS1684 Figure B.2(c) is for
information and guidance and is not mandatory.
(b) A review of images indicates a plastic membrane had been
placed under the slab and terminating at ground level which is
in accordance with AS2870.
(c) The vertical edge of the concrete slab and the horizontal base of
the wooden frame had been painted with a waterproofing
bitumen paint which is in excess of that required by the NCC
and AS.
24 Exhibit 1, page 173.
-- 27 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 28
(d) They are informed by Coast Edge that the timber used in the
frame was treated to hazard level H3 water repellence, which is
suitable for outdoor use including weatherboards and fascias.
(e) The wooden frame is additionally protected by the exterior
cladding which extended below the top of the slab.
(f) There is no evidence of moisture ingress.
126 Attached to the unsigned copy of Mr Bryant's witness statement
are various photographs, 19 of which portray part of the concrete slab
and timber plate. Mr Bryant said, and we accept, the photographs were
taken by him and depict what he had discovered at the site.
127 The photographs show the vertical face of the timber plate and the
top of the vertical face of the concrete slab which had been coloured
a dark grey. It was not disputed and we are satisfied the colouration
was caused by bitumen paint applied by Coast Edge. Partway down the
vertical face of the slab, there is a clear line where the colouration
becomes a lighter grey. Further down, there is another clear line where
the grey colour further lightens and the concrete appears less regular in
shape. Two of the photographs depict what appear to be drip or splash
marks of the top darker colour on the lighter second layer.
128 Mr Foomani expressed the view those photographs prove the
extent of the paint is insufficient. The darker top colour suggests
that was the only part which had received two coats of paint, which is
the wrong way around because protection from moisture under ground
level is most important.
129 Mr Beagley strongly disagrees. He states that paint colour can
vary between batches, can have a different appearance if applied at
different times and fades over time. The darkest section at the top is
protected by the cladding and so retains more colour. The lower parts
are exposed to the yellow sand, which had caused yellowing and
fading. In any event, in the circumstances of this manner of
construction on a free draining site, there is no requirement for the DPC
or waterproofing the sides of the concrete slab.
130 Mr Whitlock states that the bitumen paint was applied by
Mr D Whitlock. He dug down 250 - 300 mm, applied one coat, left it
a day or two and then came back and applied another coat.
-- 28 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 29
131 Mr D Whitlock confirmed he applied the bitumen paint. He said
the darkest grey indicates the second coat and the lighter grey lower
down is the first coat. He did not apply the second coat all the way to
the sand. He said normally he applies a second coat to the underground
parts of a concrete slab when soil (or sand) is dug out as part of the
landscaping works. However, Coast Edge did not perform landscaping
on the site and so that part of the second coat was not applied.
132 We accept the evidence of Mr D Whitlock.
Characterisation of the complaint
133 We are satisfied this item is solely a HBWC complaint (and not
a building service complaint) because:
(a) Nowhere in the materials submitted by Mr and Ms Bryant is
there an allegation that the installation of the slab, DPC or
timber frame had not been carried out in a proper or proficient
manner or that those works are faulty or unsatisfactory.
(b) The essence of the complaint appears to be that the engineering
plans stipulated a DPC under the timber plates and therefore
Coast Edge was contractually obliged to install the DPC under
the timber plates.
(c) An allegation of a failure to comply with the construction
contract (or the plans which are part of the contract) does not of
itself constitute a building service complaint.25
Our conclusions
134 The engineering plans form part of the construction contract, those
plans require a DPC between the concrete slab and the timber plate and
the DPC was omitted by Coast Edge. Clearly this is a breach of
contract.
135 The application of the bitumen paint is an unauthorised departure
from the contract. In the absence of evidence of loss or damage
suffered by Mr and Ms Bryant by reason of the breach, there is no basis
upon which to make an award of damages. We are satisfied it is
appropriate Coast Edge rectify its breach by doing all in its power to
25 Jennings and Howitt [2019] WASAT 133 at [37], citing Dumbreck and Tangent Nominees Pty Ltd
[2017] WASAT 88 at [31] - [35].
-- 29 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 30
obtain retrospective building approval from the relevant local
government authority.
136 Whether or not the bitumen paint has been applied in a manner
that is proper and proficient is beyond the scope of the HBWC
complaint.
Item 2 - kitchen
137 In this item, Mr and Ms Bryant complain that the kitchen was not
installed in accordance with the floorplan. The remedy sought is the
removal of the existing kitchen cabinets and installation of the nib
walls, bulkhead and cabinetry in accordance with the floorplan.
The Bryants filed an estimate prepared by DG Cabinets in the sum of
$24,038.30 for the removal of the existing kitchen cabinets and
manufacture and installation of new cabinets. This price excluded
materials and building works which might be required as
a consequence, such as sink, tapware, plumbing or tiling.
138 We are satisfied this item is solely a HBWC complaint.
The essence of the complaint is the kitchen is not in accordance with
the floorplan, as varied by agreement in relation to the swap. There is
no allegation that the various elements of the kitchen were not installed
in a proper or proficient manner or that those works are faulty or
unsatisfactory, other than by reason of their non-compliance with the
floorplan.
139 As a consequence of our findings at paragraphs [59] and [62], we
are satisfied Coast Edge is in breach of the construction contract in
failing to install the nib walls and the bulkhead as provided in the
construction plans.
140 In the absence of evidence of loss or damage suffered by Mr and
Ms Bryant by reason of those breaches, there is no basis upon which to
make an award of damages. We are satisfied it is appropriate Coast
Edge rectify its breach by:
(a) engaging an engineer to consider and approve the variations
from the construction and engineering plans; and
(b) doing all in its power to seek retrospective building approval
from the relevant local government authority.
141 The kitchen cabinets are not in accordance with the scant details in
the floorplan. The evidence is insufficient for us to make
-- 30 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 31
a determination as to how the cabinets came to be made and installed in
the manner objected to by Mr and Ms Bryant.
142 There is no dispute the cabinet-maker was a sub-contractor
engaged by Coast Edge. Accordingly, it was incumbent upon
Coast Edge to have checked the cabinetry plans and to have taken
appropriate action if the cabinetry plans did not accord with the
floorplan. Having apparently failed to do so, Coast Edge is in breach of
the parties' contract.
143 We are not satisfied it is appropriate and proportionate for the
entirety of the kitchen cabinetry to be removed and replaced. This is
because:
(a) There is no evidence there is anything wrong with the cabinetry
other than not being in accordance with the floorplan.
(b) There is no complaint regarding most of the cabinetry.
The relevant concerns appear limited to the location of the
refrigerator void, the location and size of the pantry and
the presence of the overhead cabinets.
(c) The overhead cabinets are not contrary to the construction or
engineering plans, nor any other contractual document in
evidence.
(d) We are not satisfied Mr and Ms Bryant hold a genuine objection
to the overhead cabinets.
(i) The DG Cabinets estimate included installation of
overhead cabinets.
(ii) We accept the evidence of Ms Bryant that the overhead
cabinets are used, albeit she requires assistance to reach
the top shelf.
144 We are satisfied it is appropriate to require the installation of
a refrigeration void on the left side of the kitchen bench and a standard
height, floor standing pantry on the right side.
145 In their complaint schedule Mr and Ms Bryant stated a work order
was sought. In the hearing they expressed a preference for a monetary
order because they had experienced a loss of confidence in Coast Edge.
There is no evidence of the cost of the works described at
paragraph [144] above. The DG Cabinets estimate is too broad.
-- 31 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 32
Accordingly, we will make an order for the performance of those works
by Coast Edge.
Item 5 - roof space
146 In this item, Mr and Ms Bryant complain they should not be
obliged to pay the invoice of Coast Edge in relation to the installation
of the additional roof beams. This by its nature is a HBWC complaint.
147 Mr Whitlock and Mr Cockburn say the additional roof beams
would have been required even if SB2 had remained in place.
Without any disrespect to Mr Cockburn, he cannot be considered an
independent expert witness in these proceedings. Firstly, he was not
called to give evidence as an independent expert. Secondly, he
performed the roof carpentry on the house pursuant to the instructions
of Coast Edge and therefore is not independent.
148 We prefer the engineering plans. The engineer who prepared the
plans appeared to consider the roof would be sufficiently supported by
the structure they designed. We have no independent expert evidence
to the contrary.
149 Had the parties agreed to the removal of SB2 and the installation
of two alternative roof beams, that agreement should have included
a credit for the cost of SB2 set against the additional cost of alternative
beams. That did not occur.
150 We are not satisfied there was an agreement for the installation of
the additional roof beams.26 Accordingly, we are not satisfied
Coast Edge has established a reasonable basis upon which Mr and
Ms Bryant should be obliged to pay its invoice in relation to those
beams. We consider it appropriate to declare that sum is not payable by
them.
Item 7 - quotation
151 In the original complaint item, Mr and Ms Bryant seek a refund of
the allowances in the higher quote regarding fencing and window
treatments, being a total of $7,500.27
152 In his evidence, Mr Bryant expresses the claim differently:
26 See paragraph [103].
27 See paragraph [30(b)].
-- 32 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 33
(a) The difference in total price between the higher and lower
quotes is $8,250. Therefore $8,250 is that portion of the
contract price allocated to the fencing and window treatments.
(b) Mr and Ms Bryant did half of the fencing and Coast Edge did
the other half. The cost incurred by Mr and Ms Bryant for
fencing panels and cement in relation to their portion of the
fencing was $1,721.76.
(c) Therefore, the cost incurred by Coast Edge in performing its
half of the fencing was likely also $1,721.76.
(d) Coast Edge should refund that part of the contract price
allocated to the fencing and window treatments, less the costs
incurred by Coast Edge in relation to the fencing. $8,250 less
$1,721.76 equals $6,528.24.
153 We are not satisfied Mr and Ms Bryant have established
a reasonable basis for recovery of the monies sought for the reasons
which follow.
154 Firstly, we are not satisfied it was agreed Coast Edge would
charge less than the full amount of the construction contract, or
would refund a portion of the monies once they were received.
It would be more consistent with the parties' evidence for the contract
price to represent the work it was agreed Coast Edge would actually
perform.
155 Secondly, we are not satisfied the agreed price was 'inflated' only
by the inclusion of the fencing and window treatments. We find
Mr Whitlock's description of the parties' arrangement more convincing
because it explains the basis for the increase in the price and a plausible
basis on which finance approval was obtained despite that increase.
156 Thirdly, as stated above,28 the higher quote was discharged by the
construction contract and the Bryants therefore lost any right to sue for
performance of the higher quote.
157 For these reasons, this item is dismissed.
28 See [110].
-- 33 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 34
CC 168/2025 - complaint by Mr and Ms Bryant
158 This complaint initially comprised 21 items, all of which were
referred to the Tribunal.
159 On 11 November 2025 by consent of the parties, the Tribunal
made orders that items 4(b), 5(b), 6(b) and 9 were withdrawn and for
remedial works by Coast Edge in relation to items 1, 2(a), 2(b), 3, 7(a),
7(b), 7(c), 8(a), 8(b), 10 and 11.
160 The remaining items are considered below.
Items 4(a) and 5(a) - bathroom tiling
161 In each of these items, Mr and Ms Bryant complain the bathroom
wall tiling was not installed to the ceiling in accordance with the lower
and higher quotes.
162 We are satisfied this item is solely a HBWC complaint.
The complaint is that the wall tiling is not in accordance with the words
contained in the lower and higher quotes. There is no allegation that
the tiling is not laid in a proper or proficient manner or that the tiling
is faulty or unsatisfactory, other than by reason of their non-compliance
with the lower and higher quotes.
163 As stated above, the lower and higher quotes were discharged by
the execution of the construction contract.29 There is nothing in the
construction contract or the plans which states that the bathroom wall
tiling was to extend from the floor to the ceiling. The undated
specification provides for minimal wall tiling in the absence of
directions to the contrary.
164 In relation to the March specification, both parties agree 4m2
is insufficient allowance for floor to ceiling wall tiling. Mr and
Ms Bryant submit we should disregard the part of the March
specification which addresses the extent of the tiling because tiling in
the kitchen and water closet clearly exceeds the provision in the March
specification. They submit the parties' agreement is instead contained
in the higher quote.
165 We find the submissions of Mr and Ms Bryant on the point
unpersuasive. Even had we not concluded the higher quote was
discharged by the construction contract, the March specification
29 See [110].
-- 34 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 35
was signed by the parties after the higher quote, is inconsistent with the
higher quote and therefore replaced the higher quote.
166 For these reasons we are not satisfied the evidence has established
the bathroom wall tiling is in breach of the construction contract.
Item 6(a) - kitchen cupboards
167 This item identified the issue as 'kitchen and pantry' and contained
the description '[c[upboards have not been installed as per the approved
plans'.30
168 We are satisfied this item is addressed at paragraphs [137] to [145]
above.
Item 6(c) - kitchen panty and refrigerator void
169 This item identified the issue as 'kitchen and pantry' and contained
the description '[t]he pantry and fridge space has been reversed with no
VO signed by clients'.31
170 We are satisfied this item is addressed at paragraphs [137] to [145]
above.
Item 6(d) - kitchen bulkhead
171 This item identified the issue as 'kitchen and pantry' and contained
the description '[a] bulkhead hasn't been installed above the overhead
cupboards'.
172 In relation to this item, we are satisfied this item is addressed at
paragraphs [139] and [140] above.
Item 6(e) - kitchen nib walls
173 This item identified the issue as 'kitchen and pantry' and contained
the description '[d]ue to the builder deleting the fridge and pantry nib
walls which not only carried a beam but also formed the bulkhead.
Deleting the beam then [led] to changing the beam layout which he has
charged extra for'.32 The remedy is suggested to be the installation of
30 Exhibit 1, page 21.
31 Exhibit 1, page 22.
32 Exhibit 1, page 22.
-- 35 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 36
the nib wall and beam in accordance with the plans and the 'additional
charge be credited back' to Mr and Ms Bryant.33
174 In relation to the kitchen's divergence from the plans, we are
satisfied this item is addressed at paragraphs [137] to [145] above.
175 In relation to the invoice for the additional roof beams, we are
satisfied this item is addressed at paragraph [150] above.
CC 787/2024 - complaint by Coast Edge
Item 1 - invoice for roof beams
176 In this item, Coast Edge seeks the payment of $3,080 relating to
the installation of two additional roof beams. This amount formed part
of invoice number 0171 dated 15 May 2024.
177 We are satisfied this item is addressed at paragraph [150] above.
Item 2 - invoice for storeroom
178 In this item, Coast Edge seeks the payment of $3,564 relating to
the construction of a storeroom. This amount formed part of invoice
number 0171 dated 15 May 2024.
179 We are satisfied the storeroom was built on the instructions of
Mr and Ms Bryant and they agreed to pay the cost estimated by Coast
Edge. There is no evidence of the amount to which they agreed, nor
what is the reasonable cost for constructing the storeroom.
180 The amount invoiced by Coast Edge does not appear to us
excessive. In our view, Mr and Ms Bryant should pay the invoice.
Items 3, 4 and 7 - invoices relating to the swap
181 In these items, Coast Edge seeks payment of the following sums:
(a) Cutting the kitchen floor to move the sink
plumbing - invoice 0171
$418.00
(b) Moving the sink from the island bench to
the wall bench and moving the related
plumbing - invoice 0172
$1,852.40
33 Exhibit 1, page 22.
-- 36 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 37
(c) Removing and filling in the kitchen
window - invoice 0188
$1,034.00
Total $3,304.40
182 We are satisfied the swap took place on the instructions of Mr and
Ms Bryant and they agreed to pay the cost estimated by Coast Edge.
There is no evidence of the amount to which they agreed, nor what
is the reasonable cost for the same.
183 The amount invoiced by Coast Edge does not appear to us
excessive. In our view, Mr and Ms Bryant should pay the invoice.
Item 5 - invoice for the rangehood
184 In this item, Coast Edge seeks the payment of $1,254 relating to
the installation of a rangehood above the hotplates after they were
moved to the bench on the kitchen wall. This amount formed part of
invoice number 0188 dated 11 October 2024.
185 As stated above,34 we are not satisfied the evidence establishes
there was an agreement between Coast Edge and Mr and Ms Bryant
regarding the invoiced cost.
186 The floorplan indicates a rangehood above the hotplates.
The electrical layout includes two exhaust fans. The contract price
should have included either a rangehood or two exhaust fans. If that
which was installed was different, that should have been agreed and an
adjustment between the new cost and the included cost. That did not
occur.
187 We are not satisfied Mr and Ms Bryant should pay the sum
claimed.
Item 6 - invoice for the overhead cabinets
188 In this item, Coast Edge seeks the payment of $3,740 relating to
the installation of the overhead cabinets in the kitchen. This amount
formed part of invoice number 0188 dated 11 October 2024.
34 At paragraphs [100] and [101].
-- 37 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 38
189 As stated above,35 we are not satisfied the evidence establishes
there was an agreement between Coast Edge and Mr and Ms Bryant
regarding the invoiced cost.
190 Coast Edge should have checked the cabinetry plans and obtained
instructions from Mr and Ms Bryant if the cost of the kitchen cabinets
exceeded the agreed allowance. In the absence of agreement, Mr and
Ms Bryant should not be responsible for the additional cost of the
overhead cabinets.
Item 8 - invoice for the shower screen
191 In relation to this item, Coast Edge seeks its out-of-pocket costs
relating to the supply and installation of the shower screen in the
second bathroom. The amount sought is $781.
192 The floor plan does not depict a shower screen in either bathroom.
The March specification states glass shower screens were not
applicable. There was no later agreement between the parties for the
installation of a shower screen.36
193 Accordingly, Coast Edge has not established a contractual basis
for recovery of the amount sought. This claim is dismissed.
Conclusion
194 For the reasons described above, we are satisfied it is reasonable
and appropriate to make HBWC remedy orders in relation to complaint
items 1, 2 and 5 in the proceeding CC 623/2024 and complaint items 2,
3, 4 and 7 in the proceeding CC 787/2024. The balance of
the complaint items in proceedings CC 623/2024 and CC 787/2024 are
dismissed.
195 For the reasons described above, we are satisfied it is reasonable
and appropriate to dismiss complaint items 4a and 5a in the proceeding
CC 168/2025. On the basis that the complaint and appropriate remedy
are duplicated in complaint item 2 of CC 623/2023, complaint items 6a,
6c, 6d and 6e in the proceeding CC 168/2025 are dismissed.
35 At paragraphs [100] and [102].
36 See paragraph [88].
-- 38 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 39
Orders
CC 623 of 2024
The Tribunal orders:
1. Pursuant to s 43(1)(a) and s 41(2)(a) of the Building Services
(Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), in
relation to the following items of complaint, within 90 days of
the date of this order. the respondent must complete the
specified works:
(a) Item 1 - external walls:
Do all that is necessary and within the power of the respondent
to obtain retrospective building approval of the relevant local
government authority regarding the omission of the damp proof
course as depicted in the plans and the application of the
bitumen paint.
(b) Item 2 - kitchen:
(i) Install a refrigeration void on the left side of the
kitchen bench and a standard height, floor
standing pantry on the right side of the kitchen
bench.
(ii) Do all that is necessary and within the power of
the respondent to obtain retrospective building
approval of the relevant local government
authority regarding the kitchen benches as built.
2. Pursuant to s 43(1)(a) and s 41(2)(c) of the Building Services
(Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), in
relation to complaint item 5 it is declared that part of
invoice 0171 which relates to the installation of two additional
roof beams is not valid and therefore the applicants are not
required to pay the sum of $3,080 to the respondent pursuant to
that invoice.
3. Pursuant to s 43(1)(b) of the Building Services (Complaint
Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), in relation to
complaint item 7, the Tribunal declines to make a building
remedy order and that item is dismissed.
-- 39 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 40
CC 787 of 2024
The Tribunal orders:
1. Pursuant to s 43(1)(a) and s 41(2)(b) of the Building Services
(Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), in
relation to the complaint items 2, 3, 4 and 7 the respondents
must pay to the applicant the sum of $6,868.40 within 14 days
of the date of this order.
2. Pursuant to s 43(1)(a) and s 41(2)(c) of the Building Services
(Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), in
relation to the specified items of complaint it is declared as
follows:
(a) Item 1:
That part of invoice 0171 which relates to the
installation of two additional roof beams is not valid and
therefore the respondents are not required to pay the
sum of $3,080 to the applicant pursuant to that invoice.
(b) Item 5:
That part of invoice 0188 which relates to the
installation of a rangehood in the kitchen is not valid and
therefore the respondents are not required to pay the
sum of $1,254 to the applicant pursuant to that invoice.
(c) Item 6:
That part of invoice 0188 which relates to the
installation of overhead cabinets in the kitchen is not
valid and therefore the respondents are not required to
pay the sum of $3,740 to the applicant pursuant to that
invoice.
(d) Item 8:
That part of invoice 0171 which relates to the
installation of a shower screen is not valid and therefore
the respondents are not required to pay the original sum
of $1,650, nor the amended sum of $781, to the
applicant pursuant to that invoice.
-- 40 of 41 --
[2026] WASAT 85
Page 41
CC 168 of 2025
The Tribunal orders:
1. Pursuant to s 43(1)(b) of the Building Services (Complaint
Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), in relation to
complaint items 4(a), 5(a), 6(a), 6(c), 6(d) and 6(e), the Tribunal
declines to make building remedy orders and those items are
dismissed.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of
the State Administrative Tribunal.
MS N Oldfield, MEMBER
16 JULY 2026
-- 41 of 41 --