LA PLANCHA PTY LTD and FLOWTEK PLUMBING AND GAS PTY LTD [2026] WASAT 82

[2026] WASAT 82 Page 1 JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : BUILDING SERVICES (COMPLAINT RESOLUTION AND ADMINISTRATION) ACT 2011 (WA) CITATION : LA PLANCHA PTY LTD and FLOWTEK PLUMBING AND GAS PTY LTD [2026] WASAT 82 MEMBER : MS J HEBITON, MEMBER MR G SMITH, SESSIONAL MEMBER HEARD : 14 APRIL 2026 DELIVERED : 10 JULY 2026 FILE NO/S : CC 275 of 2025 BETWEEN : LA PLANCHA PTY LTD Applicant AND FLOWTEK PLUMBING AND GAS PTY LTD Respondent Catchwords: Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA) - Building services complaint - Building remedy order - Alleged damage to rental property as the result of flooding caused by faulty or unsatisfactory installation of washing machine and isolation stops - Cause of flooding - Evidence insufficient to exclude intervening event as cause of flooding -- 1 of 16 -- [2026] WASAT 82 Page 2 Legislation: Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), s 3, s 3(a), s 3(b)(i), s 5(1), s 9, s 10, s 11(1)(d), s 36, s 38, s 38(1) Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Regulations 2011 (WA), reg 5 Home Building Contracts Act 1991 (WA), s 3, s 3(1) Home Building Contracts Regulations 1992 (WA), reg 2A Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 5 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 9(a), s 15, s 77 Result: Proceeding dismissed Category: B Representation: Counsel: Applicant : In Person Respondent : In Person Solicitors: Applicant : N/A Respondent : N/A Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Nil -- 2 of 16 -- [2026] WASAT 82 Page 3 REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: Introduction 1 La Plancha Pty Ltd, (La Plancha) says that Flowtek Plumbing and Gas Pty Ltd (Flowtek) undertook plumbing work, (namely the installation of a washing machine and isolation stops at its rental property) which was not carried out in a proper and proficient manner or is faulty or unsatisfactory. 2 La Plancha says that the faulty or unsatisfactory plumbing work led to the flooding of the upstairs and downstairs living area of their property (the flooding incident). They claim it will cost $37,518.60 plus GST1 to repair the damage caused by the flooding incident. Referral of the Complaint to the Tribunal 3 The Tribunal received the complaint by way of referral from the Building Commissioner (the Commissioner) pursuant to s 11(1)(d) of the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA) (the BSCRA Act) which enables the Tribunal to deal with the complaint under s 38 of the BSCRA Act. 4 La Plancha lodged their complaint with the Commissioner on 19 May 2024, pursuant to s 5(1) of the BSCRA Act. The complaint named Flowtek as the respondent. 5 On 7 April 2025 an authorised inspector of the Building Commission prepared an investigation report in relation to the complaints pursuant to s 10 of the BSCRA Act.2 The report detailed the background to the complaint and subsequent investigation, including the recommendation that the matter be referred to the Tribunal because the parties could not agree on liability for the damage, and conciliation was not considered viable.3 6 On 30 April 2025 the complaint was referred to the Tribunal.4 Attached was a document titled 'List of All Complaint items lodged with 1 Exhibit A, pages 12 - 16. 2 Exhibit A, pages 17 - 18. 3 See also Exhibit A, pages 52 - 69, for the building inspector's assessment report prepared in January 2025 detailing the response to the complaint items. 4 Exhibit A, pages 1 - 3. -- 3 of 16 -- [2026] WASAT 82 Page 4 Building Commissioner' (the Scott Schedule), detailing 22 complaint items.5 Procedural Background 7 Numerous directions hearings were held between 4 June 2025 and 19 March 2026 dealing with a variety of matters including the de-registration and subsequent re-registration of La Plancha with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission,6 and the programming of the matter for hearing. 8 The final hearing of the matter occurred on 14 April 2026. Ms Belguenani appeared on behalf of La Plancha in her capacity as a Director of that company and Mr Pretorius appeared on behalf of Flowtek in his capacity as a Director of that company. 9 A Hearing Book, marked as Exhibit A was prepared by the Tribunal which contained a paginated bundle of documents lodged by the parties and sought to be relied upon during the hearing.7 10 A multimedia submission, being a video of the flooding, was played and handed up during the hearing. It was marked as Exhibit B. Issues 11 The following issues require determination by the Tribunal: (1) Was the plumbing work carried out by Flowtek a regulated building service? 12 If the answer to (1) is answered in the affirmative: (2) Was the plumbing work carried out by Flowtek not carried out in a proper and proficient manner or was it faulty or unsatisfactory within the meaning of s 38(1) of the BSCRA Act? 13 If the answer to (2) is answered in the affirmative: (3) What building remedy order should the Tribunal make? 5 Exhibit A, pages 12 - 16. 6 Exhibit A, page 45. 7 The bundle included documents forming part of the Commissioner's investigation, the submissions and evidentiary material of each party, including building reports as to causation, costs of damages, and the Tribunal orders. -- 4 of 16 -- [2026] WASAT 82 Page 5 Statutory Framework 14 This matter comes before the Tribunal in its original jurisdiction.8 The Tribunal is limited to the powers it has been provided by both the BSCRA Act as the enabling statute and the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (the SAT Act). 15 Section 38 of the BSCRA Act gives the Tribunal the statutory power to deal with a Building Service Complaint in one of the following two ways: (a) If the Tribunal is satisfied that the work undertaken by Flowtek has not been carried out in a proper or proficient manner, or is faulty or unsatisfactory, it may make a building remedy order; or (b) Otherwise, the Tribunal may decline to make a building remedy order. 16 Section 36 of the BSCRA Act gives the Tribunal the power to make one of the three following types of building remedy order: (a) An order requiring the person who carried out the regulated building service to remedy the building service as specified in the order, usually by the completion of specific works, or (b) An order requiring the person who carried out the regulated building service to pay to the complainant the costs of remedying the building service, or (c) An order requiring the person who carried out the regulated building service to pay compensation to the complainant for the failure to carry out the building service in a proper or proficient manner or for faulty or unsatisfactory building work. 17 Section 77 of the SAT Act requires us to make findings of material fact as to what caused the flooding incident based on the evidence which is before the Tribunal. 8 SAT Act, s 15. -- 5 of 16 -- [2026] WASAT 82 Page 6 Is La Plancha a person who is permitted make a building service complaint? 18 Pursuant to s 5(1) of the BSCRA Act, a person9 may make a building service complaint10 to the Building Commission about a regulated building service not being carried out in a proper and proficient manner or being faulty or unsatisfactory. This provision must be read subject to Regulation 5 of the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Regulations 2011 (WA) (the BSCRA Regulations) which prescribes who can make a building service complaint under s 5(1) of the BSCRA Act in the following terms: A building service complaint about the carrying out of a regulated building service may only be made by a person whose interests are being, or have been, adversely affected by the carrying out of the regulated building service. 19 There is no dispute that La Plancha is permitted to have made the building service complaint to the Building Commissioner and that upon that the complaint having been referred, the Tribunal is authorised to determine it. Was the work undertaken by Flowtek a regulated building service? 20 There are three forms of regulated building service11 for the purposes of the BSCRA Act. These are: (a) a building service carried out by a registered building service provider or an approved owner-builder; (b) home building work that is - (i) carried out by a person for another person under a home building work contract or other contract or arrangement for gain or reward; and (ii) not carried out for a person who is in turn obliged to perform the work under another contract; (c) any other service or work prescribed for the purposes of this definition. 9 Interpretation Act 1984, s 5 defines 'person' as including 'a public body, company, or association or body of persons, corporate or unincorporate'[.] 10 BSCRA Act, s 3, which is defined to mean a complaint under s 5(1). 'Complaint' is defined in s 3 to include a building service complaint. 11 BSCRA Act, s 3. -- 6 of 16 -- [2026] WASAT 82 Page 7 21 Neither party to the proceeding advanced an argument as to which category of regulated building service encompassed the work undertaken by Flowtek. Nor was the Tribunal provided with any documentary evidence as to the registration of Flowtek as a plumbing or building business. 22 Under cross-examination, Ms Belguenani challenged Mr Pretorius as to the supervision and registration of Flowtek to do the work, but this was rejected by Mr Pretorius on the basis that he did not require the work to be supervised as it was characterised as 'minor works'. Further, he stated that to the extent necessary, he worked under his business partner's registration. 23 Given the absence of any evidence as to Flowtek's registration pursuant to the BSCRA Act, we have determined that the work undertaken by Flowtek cannot be categorised as work undertaken by a 'registered building service provider', and as such, cannot be characterised as a regulated building service pursuant to sub-definition (a) of the definition of that term contained in s 3 of the BSCRA Act. 24 We are however, satisfied that the work undertaken by Flowtek was 'home building work' pursuant to sub-definition (b)(i) of 'regulated building service' in s 3 of the BSCRA Act. 25 This sub-definition defines 'home building work' by reference to the meaning given to the same term in s 3 of the Home Building Contracts Act 1991 (the HBC Act) which relevantly includes that home building work means 'the whole or part of the work of … (c) altering, improving, or repairing a dwelling, including a strata/community title dwelling'. 26 We are satisfied that Flowtek carried out the work pursuant to an 'other contract or arrangement for gain or reward' as is provided for in the definition of regulated building service in s 3(b)(i) of the BSCRA Act. We have formed this view based on the undisputed evidence that La Plancha and Flowtek entered into an agreement to undertake the work complained of, and La Plancha paid Flowtek $1,046.50, for performing that work.12 27 Based on the above, in our view, the work undertaken by Flowtek in installing the washing machines and isolation stops meets the 12 Exhibit A, page 86. -- 7 of 16 -- [2026] WASAT 82 Page 8 definition of 'regulated building service' for the purposes of the BSCRA Act. Contentions La Plancha 28 La Plancha contend that all 22 items of complaint listed in the Scott Schedule represent damage that has occurred as the result of the work performed by Flowtek in a manner that was not proper and proficient or was faulty or unsatisfactory. La Plancha has not included any work in relation to the installation of the washing machine or isolation stops in its complaint because those items were fixed the day after the incident. 29 La Plancha does not seek monetary compensation for the damage but rather want the work nominated in the Scott Schedule to be completed by Flowtek or their approved contractors by reference to the amounts contained in the quotation prepared by Ahrens Group Pty Ltd. In reliance on that quotation, they say it will cost $37,518.60 plus GST to complete the nominated work.13 Flowtek 30 Flowtek contend that they are not responsible for the damage because there is no evidence to suggest that the work they undertook was not carried out in a proper or proficient manner or was otherwise faulty or unsatisfactory. 31 They say that there is nothing to suggest that the isolation stops failed. They also say that a delay of three months between the work being completed and the flooding incident occurring is too long a period for the washing machine hose connection to work then subsequently rupture, and that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that there was not some intervening factor that caused the flooding incident. 32 They further say the Ahrens quotation for the work to be undertaken is excessive. 13 Exhibit A, page 25. We note that s 36(1)(a) of the BSCRA Act only provides for the making of a work order to remedy the building service not to carry out any other works. That claim can only be dealt with under s 36(1)(c) of the BSCRA Act, involving a claim for compensation. -- 8 of 16 -- [2026] WASAT 82 Page 9 Evidence 33 Both parties seek to rely on reports of builders. 34 La Plancha lodged building reports of Customer First Contracting (CFC), dated 13 October 2025 and East Pilbara Maintenance (EPM), dated 20 February 2026. They also lodged the Ahrens Quotation, dated 6 December 2023 as to the cost of repairing the damage. 35 Flowtek lodged a building inspection report of Parlapana Construction that is undated but appears to have been prepared in early 2026. 36 None of the experts who submitted reports was called to give evidence or were made available for cross-examination during the final hearing of the matter. 37 A number of expert evidence and factual disputes were raised in the course of the final hearing of this matter. As such, the Tribunal is required to make findings as to which expert is preferred and findings of fact as to the evidence given by lay witnesses. Tribunal's findings in relation to the evidence Building Reports 38 We were assisted to some degree by the building reports. However, we note the following factors that impacted on the weight we have determined it is appropriate to give the each of the reports. 39 The CFC and ERM reports provided by La Plancha and the Parlaparla report submitted by Flowtek were noted to be expert reports however none of the reports accord with the attributes of expert reports as required by Tribunal.14 For example, they do not acknowledge that they agree to be bound by the experts' obligations to assist the Tribunal, nor do they specify the authors' qualifications, training and experience in the field of their expertise. 40 We also note whilst the building reports were admitted into evidence, none of the building report authors were made available for cross-examination during the final hearing. As such, none of the conclusions or methodology in the reports could be tested by either the other party or the Tribunal. Further, none of the building report 14 As detailed in State Administrative Tribunal Information Sheet 11. -- 9 of 16 -- [2026] WASAT 82 Page 10 authors noted these matters as assumptions in the preparation of their reports. 41 In addition, each of the building reports was prepared a considerable period of time after the flooding incident, and neither did they express a view based on independent evidence as to who was responsible for the flooding incident. 42 Further, we consider it significant that the author of each of these reports based their view as to the cause of the flooding incident on material - either photographs or oral reporting from their respective client - on second hand information from their respective clients. 43 Given that a number of the matters contained in each of these reports is contested, these factors have affected the weight afforded to these reports by the Tribunal. 44 In contrast, representatives of both La Plancha and Flowtek attended the hearing, gave evidence in person and were available for cross-examination. 45 Given the matters referred to above at [38] - [44], the Tribunal has determined it appropriate to place more weight on the evidence given by witnesses who attended the hearing and were cross-examined on their evidence as distinct from the building reports provided. Ms Belguenani's evidence 46 Ms Belguenani was an honest and forthright witness. 47 She was able to assist the Tribunal by providing a detailed chronology of the events forming the basis of this matter, and by providing the building reports referred to above at [34] as to the damage caused by the flooding incident, and the cost of repairing that damage. In addition, she provided a video showing the volume of water flowing from under the laundry trough onto the laundry floor. 48 She detailed how she considers that the flooding incident was caused by the connector between the washing machine hose and isolation stop being faulty in that a compatible outlet was not used and/or there was a failure to tighten the washing machine valve. She holds this view based on what she says Mr Pretorius told her in the days following the -- 10 of 16 -- [2026] WASAT 82 Page 11 flooding incident.15 She rejects Mr Pretorius' assertion that the cause of the flooding incident was a burst washing machine hose. 49 Her actions in the months following the incident were based on an admission of liability made by Mr Pretorius on the day following the flooding incident and his promise that he would repair the damage. For this reason, at Mr Pretorius' request she did not involve her insurance company. 50 She also candidly and respectfully expressed her disappointment that Mr Pretorius constantly evaded her telephone calls and did not fulfill the commitments made to her to remedy the damage. Mr Pretorius' evidence 51 Mr Pretorius gave the following evidence. We note that at times, he struggled to recall specific events with clarity. 52 He holds the view that the flooding incident was caused by a burst washing machine hose. In this regard, he noted that the work he performed only involved the isolation stops, all of which were in working order when he left the property. 53 He denies that the cause of the flooding incident was because of the work he performed. He says that he switched on all of the isolation stops and checked them before leaving the property on the day the work was performed. He states that he confirmed there were no leaks whilst he was checking the work. 54 He denies telling Ms Belguenani that Flowtek was liable for the flooding incident or asking her not to involve her insurance company. Rather, he asserts that he said that he would not give the matter to his insurance company, but rather that it was La Plancha's responsibility to go to their insurance company first who would then involve his insurance company if necessary. 55 In his view, the delay of three months between the work he undertook and the flooding incident occurring suggests that his work is not the cause of the incident. Further, he says that due to this delay, it is impossible to rule out the possibility of some intervening factor such as a tenant touching the washing machine hose or connection, and that being the cause of the flooding incident. 15 Exhibit A, page 26. -- 11 of 16 -- [2026] WASAT 82 Page 12 56 Mr Pretorius also takes issue with Flowtek's liability for the extent of damage that occurred, blaming it on the following two factors. He says, first, the failure to turn off the isolation stops as soon as the flooding became apparent considerably worsened the damage that occurred. Second, he says that the use of refrigeration panels for the inside walls of the property without adequate waterproofing resulted in a failure to contain the water in the laundry area. 57 He also challenges the estimate of costs to rectify the damage as provided by La Plancha on the basis that they are excessive. He illustrated this during his evidence by reference to the item titled 'carpenter/ceiling fixer' in the Ahrens Quotation16 stating that 200 hours for that aspect of the job is akin to building a new house, not undertaking the repairs arising from the flooding incident. Similarly, he says that 100 hours for a painter is excessive in that it is the allowance necessary for painting an entire house.17 Consideration 58 The Tribunal acknowledges the distress caused to La Plancha as a result of the flooding incident. 59 In exercising its jurisdiction to determine the application, the Tribunal must apply the relevant legal principles. To do otherwise would breach the Tribunal's statutory obligation to resolve disputes fairly and according to the substantial merits of the case.18 60 Section 38 of the BSCRA Act provides that in order for La Plancha's application to succeed, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the regulated building service carried out by Flowtek has not been carried out in a proper and proficient manner or is faulty or unsatisfactory. 61 Applying our statutory obligations to the evidence before us, we cannot be satisfied that the requirements of s 38 of the BSCRA Act have been met. We have formed this view for the following reasons. 62 Based on the evidence before us, it is impossible to exclude the possibility of an intervening factor being the cause of the flooding incident. 16 Exhibit A, page 25. 17 Oral evidence of Mr Pretorius given during the final hearing on 14 April 2026. 18 SAT Act, s 9(a). -- 12 of 16 -- [2026] WASAT 82 Page 13 63 La Plancha has given the Tribunal evidence that the cause of the damage was a rupture in the connection between the washing machine and the water supply in the upstairs laundry at the property.19 Both Ms Belguenani and the CFC building report say that the connection point beneath the laundry trough, where the washing machine hose is fitted had visible signs of water damage and deterioration caused by a slow leak before it actually burst. Ms Belguenani said words to the effect of that there was a slow leak going on for the couple of months that went by between the installation and the actual outburst of the whole installation.20 64 La Plancha says that evidence of the cause of the damage is illustrated in the video taken by Ms Belguenani which shows evidence of a slow leak and signs of rust under the laundry trough. La Plancha asserts that whilst the damage itself was caused by the rupture, there was a slow leak happening in the laundry trough cupboard for a couple of months before.21 65 Based on this evidence, La Plancha contends that this evidence shows both the extent of the flooding and where the leak originated - being at the back of the cupboard under the laundry trough. They also say it confirms that the laundry floor did contain a floor waste, contrary to the finding by the Building Commission that there was not one installed. 66 During the playing of the video, when questioned by the Tribunal as to whether it showed exactly what broke, Ms Belguenani answered that 'it was the connection between the washing machine and where it was connected to the water'.22 However, we note that the video did not show the hose or the connection it came away from. Ms Belguenani admitted that the quality of the video was 'not much' due to the panic in the home at the time.23 This is understandable, but it diminishes the Tribunal's ability to be satisfied of the cause of the flooding incident. 67 In this regard, we also note that Ms Belguenani provided to the Tribunal photographs of the laundry trough and floor taken contemporaneously at the time of the flooding incident. Whilst these photographs do show the evidence of the extensive flooding that occurred, and the evidence of the damage to the base of the laundry 19 Exhibit A, page 29, para 1, being the Property Damage Report of CFC dated 13 October 2025. 20 Oral evidence of Ms Belguenani given during the final hearing on 14 April 2026. 21 Oral evidence of Ms Belguenani given during the final hearing on 14 April 2026. 22 Oral evidence of Ms Belguenani given during the final hearing on 14 April 2026. 23 Oral evidence of Ms Belguenani given during the final hearing on 14 April 2026. -- 13 of 16 -- [2026] WASAT 82 Page 14 trough cupboard around the drainpipe, they do not show the hose said to have burst, or the connection. 68 To the extent that Ms Belguenani gave us first-hand accounts of evidence of factual matters, we accept them. This is perhaps best illustrated by her forceful repeated rejection of Mr Pretorius' assertion that it was the washing machine hose that had burst, causing the flooding incident. On at least two separate occasions, Ms Belguenani rejected this as a possible cause, in one instance stating that 'the washing machine is still the same three and a half years later, which is also why Mr Pretorius initially took the responsibility and called Frank'.24 69 As noted above at [62], we accept that Ms Belguenani's explanation of the cause of the flooding incident may be accurate. However, in determining this we must be satisfied that the damage Ms Belguenani complains of was the result of the work carried out by Mr Pretorius on behalf of Flowtek, and not some other cause. 70 The evidence we have before us in regard to this issue is deficient in two aspects. First, we have no direct evidence as to the state of the hose or connector as at the time of the flooding incident. Second, we do not have any evidence excluding the cause of the flooding incident being attributed to some other intervening factor. We are of the view that it is relevant that the property was tenanted, and Ms Belguenani did not have day-to-day control or knowledge of the area where the flooding incident occurred for the three-month period between when the washing machine and isolation stops were installed and the flooding incident occurred. Given these factors, we cannot exclude the possibility of some intervening factor impacting on the connection. 71 We have also considered the building reports of CPC and ERM that Ms Belguenani relies on in support of her assertions. Several times during the hearing she founded her explanation of the cause of the flooding incident as being a slow leak that eventually burst based on an assumption she had made about the contents of those reports.25 72 We note that the EPM report identifies the cause of the flooding incident as being due to the 'faulty connection' point, and '[d]ue to the faulty connection under the trough, the washing machine supply connection leaked and eventually failed, resulting in flooding which penetrated through the floor structure and affected the downstairs 24 Oral evidence of Ms Belguenani given during the final hearing on 14 April 2026. 25 Oral evidence of Ms Belguenani given during the final hearing on 14 April 2026. -- 14 of 16 -- [2026] WASAT 82 Page 15 areas'.26 Significantly, this report makes no reference to a connection between the work done by Flowtek and the cause of the slow leak. 73 The CFC report attributes the flooding incident to a 'rupture' that 'occurred in the connection between the washing machine and the water supply in the upstairs laundry'.27 This report states that the cause of the flooding incident was attributable to the work done by Flowtek. It states:28 The washing machine installation had been previously completed on 28th March 2022, with no immediate issues observed by the home-owner post-installation. (Emphasis added). 74 This evidence is consistent with the evidence given by Mr Pretorius, which we accept, that 'everything was tested and everything worked' and that 'there was no leak when I left the property because I did switch all of them [the isolation valves] on'.29 75 In its conclusion, the CFC report states that:30 Based on the expert inspection findings, photographic/video evidence provided by the homeowner, and the timeline of events, we submit that: a. The water damage sustained to the property is a direct result of the washing machine incident on 23rd June 2022. b. There are no alternate causes that could reasonably account for the location and extent of damage. c. The damages observed are consistent with sudden and accidental flooding from the laundry area. d. No structural and water damages were identified during CFC pre-purchase inspection. 76 We also observe that there were four attachments to the CFC report, none of which were provided to the Tribunal. 77 We accept the contents of the CFC report to the extent that it comments on matters within the expertise and knowledge of its author, particularly in so far as it comments on the damage that has occurred as a result of the flooding incident. The conclusions are consistent with the 26 Exhibit A, page 40. 27 Exhibit A, pages 29 - 30. 28 Exhibit A, page 29. 29 Oral evidence of Mr Pretorius given during the final hearing on 14 April 2026. 30 Exhibit A, page 30. -- 15 of 16 -- [2026] WASAT 82 Page 16 EPM report in that the cause of the damage to the property is found to have been the flooding incident which occurred on 23 June 2022. However, like the EPM report, the CFC report does not address why the flooding incident occurred, or who was responsible for the incident occurring. Conclusion 78 On the basis of the evidence available to us, it is impossible to exclude the possibility that some other event took place which was the cause of the incident instead of the work done by Flowtek. As such, we cannot be satisfied pursuant to the requirements under s 38 of the BSCRA Act that the work undertaken by Flowtek was not carried out in a proper or proficient manner, or was otherwise faulty or unsatisfactory. 79 Accordingly, we decline to make a building remedy order pursuant to s 38 of the BSCRA Act, and we will dismiss the proceeding. Orders The Tribunal orders: 1. Pursuant to s 38(1)(b) of the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), the Tribunal declines to make a building remedy order. 2. The proceeding is dismissed pursuant to s 47(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA). I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal. MS J HEBITON, MEMBER 10 JULY 2026 -- 16 of 16 --