SWEETMAN and SKYTREE HOMES PTY LTD [2026] WASAT 42 (S)

[2026] WASAT 42 (S) Page 1 JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : BUILDING SERVICES (COMPLAINT RESOLUTION AND ADMINISTRATION) ACT 2011 (WA) CITATION : SWEETMAN and SKYTREE HOMES PTY LTD [2026] WASAT 42 (S) MEMBER : MS R PETRUCCI, MEMBER HEARD : DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS DELIVERED : 9 JULY 2026 FILE NO/S : CC 55 of 2025 BETWEEN : JOSHUA SWEETMAN First Applicant CAROLINE SWEETMAN Second Applicant AND SKYTREE HOMES PTY LTD Respondent Catchwords: Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA) - Regulated building service complaint - Remedial works - Claim for site supervision costs - Claim for alternative accommodation costs - Reasonable duration (days/hours) owners are required to vacate property - Reasonable amount - Turns on own facts -- 1 of 12 -- [2026] WASAT 42 (S) Page 2 Legislation: Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), s 36(1)(b), s 38(1)(a), s 38(1)(b) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 32, s 46(1), s 60(2) Result: Application partly successful Category: B Representation: Counsel: First Applicant : Mr M Lang Second Applicant : Mr M Lang Respondent : Mr S Mintz & Mr W Vogt Solicitors: First Applicant : Lang Litigation and Construction Law Second Applicant : Lang Litigation and Construction Law Respondent : Vogt Legal Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Sweetman and Skytree Homes Pty Ltd [2026] WASAT 42 -- 2 of 12 -- [2026] WASAT 42 (S) Page 3 REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: Background 1 On 1 May 2026, the Tribunal delivered its substantive decision in Sweetman and Skytree Homes Pty Ltd [2026] WASAT 42 (Sweetman No 1). These supplementary reasons concern the two matters that were deferred in that decision:1 (a) the reasonable amount to be allowed for site supervision; and (b) the reasonable amount to be allowed for alternative accommodation for the owners and their children during the period in which they must vacate the property. 2 In Sweetman No 1, the Tribunal accepted that the duration of the remedial works could not be finalised until the scope of the builder's liability was determined. The owners' expert, Mr Lachlan Deshon, agreed that the scope of works required refinement depending on the contractor engaged.2 For those reasons, we did not fix site supervision costs at that time. 3 We also accepted that some remedial items may require the owners and their children to vacate the property temporarily. However, we did not determine the duration of any required relocation, instead directing the parties to provide further evidence as to the reasonable duration (day/hours) that the property is required to be vacated.3 Procedural history and determination on the documents 4 To facilitate the provision of evidence, we made programming orders on 1 May 2026 requiring the parties to confer and lodge proposed orders addressing the timetable for submissions on the two outstanding issues. The parties were unable to reach agreement. 5 Consequently, at a directions hearing on 27 May 2026, we made orders requiring each party to file submissions and any additional documents. We indicated that, subject to any further order, the issues would be determined on the documents after 19 June 2026 pursuant to s 60(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act). 1 Sweetman No 1 at [670] to [696]. 2 Ibid at [676]. 3 Ibid at [689]. -- 3 of 12 -- [2026] WASAT 42 (S) Page 4 6 The builder's deadline was subsequently extended to 24 June 2026. 7 While the Tribunal may determine how to proceed with a hearing as provided for in s 32 of the SAT Act, it is not the role of the Tribunal to take the lead in the investigation of the facts. Rather, the role of the Tribunal is to make a decision on the basis of the evidence presented to it and the usual practice is that the parties have the management of their respective case. Therefore, the owners, as the applicants, bear the burden of proving their case, that is, persuading the Tribunal that they are entitled to the relief (orders) they seek, being the civil standard of proof, being on the balance of probabilities. 8 We have now determined the two matters (see above at [1]) on the written materials and make the orders following [46]. Evidence 9 The owners rely on evidence from: • Mr Lachlan Deshon, who prepared a report titled 'Assessment of Supervision costs and the Owners alternative accommodation costs and duration while remedial work is being completed at the property'. The report included a Gantt chart estimating the duration of the remedial works and the associated site supervision and accommodation requirements; and • Mr Greg Mithen, who reviewed Mr Deshon's report and provided his own opinion. 10 The builder relies on evidence from: • Mr Christopher Jones, who provided a report titled 'Supplementary Quantity Surveying Report' addressing site supervision hours and accommodation duration and cost. 11 Both parties filed written submissions.4 12 We have considered all the evidence and submissions to determine the issues as set out below. 4 The owners filed written submissions on 5 June 2026 and the builder filed written submissions on 24 June 2026. -- 4 of 12 -- [2026] WASAT 42 (S) Page 5 Issues 13 The issues for determination are: (a) what amount, if any, should be allowed for site supervision? and (b) what amount, if any, should be allowed for alternative accommodation? What amount, if any, should be allowed for site supervision? Owners' position 14 The owners submit that 160 hours of site supervision at $135 per hour should be allowed, totalling $21,600. Their position is based on Mr Deshon's: • estimate that the remedial works will take 58 working days (80 calendar days); • opinion that a site supervisor should attend the property for approximately 20 hours per week (or a total of 150 hours); and • opinion that an additional 10 hours is required for pre-planning. 15 Mr Mithen agreed with the 58 working day duration but considered that: • planning should be 40 hours, not 10 hours; and • site supervision should be full-time (312 hours), due to the complexity and volume of the works and the fact that the house is fully furnished and occupied by the owners and their children. Builder's position 16 Mr Jones considered that 120 to 180 hours of site supervision was reasonable. 17 Mr Jones explained that site supervision typically involves: • initial planning and contractor coordination; • periodic inspections at critical stages; • review of completed works; and -- 5 of 12 -- [2026] WASAT 42 (S) Page 6 • final defect inspections. 18 Mr Jones did not consider full-time site supervision necessary or consistent with industry practice. 19 Because the owners' claim of 160 hours fell within Mr Jones' range, the builder accepts that 160 hours is reasonable for site supervision. Tribunal's consideration 20 We begin by noting that the parties ultimately agree that 160 hours is reasonable for site supervision in this case. That agreement is consistent with the evidence of both Mr Deshon and Mr Jones. 21 In Sweetman No 1, we accepted $135 per hour as a reasonable rate for site supervision.5 Applying that rate, we find it reasonable and appropriate to allow the owners site supervision costs of $21,600 under s 36(1)(b) read with s 38(1)(a) of the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA) (BSCRA Act). What amount, if any, should be allowed for alternative accommodation? Owners' position 22 The owners submit that they and their children must vacate the property for nine weeks, at a cost of $38,889, based on an average weekly rate of $4,321 ($4,403 + $4,240/2) derived from the following two Airbnb properties (Property 2 and Property 3) identified by Mr Deshon: (a) The Grand Family Mansion: 5BR with Pool table, BBQ: • Entire home in Winthrop (fully furnished); • 10 guests - 5 bedrooms - 6 beds - 4 baths; and • Check in 11/9/2026 - Checkout 13/11/2026 (a period of nine weeks) $39,628.27 (or $4,403 per week); (b) North Freo Retreat Walk to Beach River and Train: • Entire home in North Fremantle (fully furnished); 5 Sweetman No 1 at [678]. -- 6 of 12 -- [2026] WASAT 42 (S) Page 7 • 8 guests - 4 bedrooms - 4 bedrooms - 2 baths; • Check in 11/9/2026 - Checkout 13/11/2026 (a period of nine weeks) $38,164.27 (or $4,240 per week). 23 The owners submit that they and their children must vacate: (a) one week prior to the remedial works commencing for pre-planning; (b) the entire eight-week remedial period; and (c) until internal cleaning is completed. 24 The owners rely on Mr Deshon's opinion that the remedial works will be noisy, disruptive, unsafe, and will obstruct access to parts of their property. Further, the owners refer to the Gantt chart prepared by Mr Deshon (Appendix A attached to his report) where he assesses the items of complaint and sets out the estimated duration (days) for the remedial works. 25 In his report, Mr Deshon identifies: • complaint items where he states the remedial work will be substantial, noisy, disruptive and cause an unsafe living environment; • complaint items where he states the remedial work in the bedrooms will cause the rooms not to be habitable; • complaint items where he states the remedial work will obstruct access; and • complaints items which he says will require a site meeting with the site supervisor for pre-planning and which will interrupt the owners amenity of the property. 26 Mr Mithen agrees with Mr Deshon requiring the owners and their children to vacate the property while remedial works are completed. Mr Mithen opined that 'it is not feasible to have a young family living in a house whilst this volume of work is happening around them'. Builder's position 27 The builder submits that the owners and their children only need to vacate the property for remedial works required for the flooring and -- 7 of 12 -- [2026] WASAT 42 (S) Page 8 associated finishing works on the second storey, which is estimated at two to four weeks. According to the builder, this is because the ground level of the owners' dwelling has one bedroom with a contained ensuite bathroom along with kitchen and cooking facilities and there are a number of other rooms which could be used to accommodate the owners and their children over the course of the remedial works. 28 In support of its position, relying on Mr Jones' report, the builder contends that: • Airbnb rates are excessive because they reflect holiday pricing; • 'like-for-like' accommodation is unnecessary; and • a reasonable cost is $11,000 for four weeks based on short-stay accommodation rates (being the average of the rates referred to under 'Option Two' in Mr Jones' report of $8,500 and $13,500 for four weeks rent of a furnished short-term accommodation for a family sized holiday home and a relocation allowance). 29 In the alternative, if Airbnb is to be used, the builder submits that Property 1 identified by Mr Deshon should be preferred because it is less expensive but still suitable. Tribunal's consideration 30 Most of the 111 complaint items require remedial work (Sweetman No 1 at [4]). 31 There is a significant disparity between the parties as to firstly, the duration (days/hours) the owners and their children are required to vacate the property while remedial works are undertaken, and secondly as to the cost of the alternative accommodation. The owners' position is the duration is nine weeks and the cost is $38,889. In contrast, the builder's position is the duration is four weeks and the cost is $11,000. Whether the owners and their children must vacate the week before the remedial works commence? 32 We are not persuaded that the owners and their children must vacate the week before the remedial works commence. This is because the owners' children attend school during weekdays, thereby reducing disruption. Further, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the owners work from home in a manner that would be materially affected. -- 8 of 12 -- [2026] WASAT 42 (S) Page 9 33 We therefore do not allow any of the alternative accommodation costs claimed for the week prior to remedial works commencing. Whether the owners and their children must vacate for eight-weeks? 34 We are also not persuaded that the owners and their children must vacate for the entire eight-week period opined by Mr Deshon and Mr Mithen. While Mr Deshon listed specific items of complaint requiring the owners and their children to vacate the property, suggesting the remedial work will be 'substantial', 'noisy', and 'disruptive' causing 'an unsafe living environment' no explanation for this was provided. Only one item of complaint, item 74, was listed by Mr Deshon requiring the property to be 'non-habitable' for four days in order to remediate the window reveals upstairs but again without explanation. 35 While some remedial works will be inconvenient or disruptive, inconvenience and disruption is not the same as uninhabitability. What is a reasonable duration that the owners and their children are required to vacate the property? 36 We also do not accept the builder's submission that only four weeks are required. 37 We have reviewed the Gantt chart prepared by Mr Deshon and would reduce the eight weeks claimed by the owners for alternate accommodation by 21 days (or three weeks) for the following adjustments: • item withdrawn (complaint item 109.1) reduce the one day for remedial work to zero days (see Sweetman No 1 at [770]); • internal cleaning time claimed reduce the three days for remedial work to zero days (see Sweetman No 1 at [653], [665] and [667]); • painting duration reduce from the 13 days for remedial work to three days (see Sweetman No1 at [315] and [318]); • door-straightening reduce the five days for remedial work to one day (see Sweetman No 1 at [323]); and • window-reveal works reduce the four days remedial work to one day (see Sweetman No 1 at [447 and [450]]). -- 9 of 12 -- [2026] WASAT 42 (S) Page 10 38 After these adjustments, we find that five weeks is a reasonable duration in this case that the owners and the children will be required to vacate the property while remedial works are done. What is the reasonable alternative accommodation weekly rate? 39 The owners' claim a weekly rate for alternative accommodation of $4,321 based on Airbnb; the builder's range is $2,000 to $3,000, but no source or reference was provided. 40 The owners originally claimed $500 per night (or $3,500 per week for a period of eight weeks).6 41 Property 1, which Mr Deshon excluded, is $3,698 per week. Property 1 is described by Mr Deshon as: • 4BR Ardross Mid-Century Home - Walk to Garden City (fully furnished); • guests - 4 bedrooms - 5 bedrooms - 2.5 baths; • Check in 11/9/2026 - Checkout 13/11/2026 (a period of nine weeks) $33,285.42 (or $3,698 per week). 42 We accept the builder's submission that Property 1 is appropriate in this case because it is reasonably comparable in size and location to the owners' property. While it may be older, 'like-for-like' does not require a near-identical property. As we stated at [687] in Sweetman No 1, the appropriate test is reasonableness in the circumstances, which in this case may include proximity to school, work, and the owners' home. The difference between Property 1 and Property 2 appears to be the number of bathrooms and that Property 3 has a pool table and BBQ. 43 We find the reasonable weekly rate for alternative accommodation in this case is $3,698. What amount is to be allowed for alternative accommodation? 44 On balance, in our view, it is reasonable and appropriate to allow the owners alternative accommodation costs for five weeks and that the weekly rental for Property 1 is to be used to calculate the alternative accommodation cost in this case. Applying the weekly rate of $3,698 for five weeks, we conclude that it is reasonable and appropriate to 6 Ibid at [680]. -- 10 of 12 -- [2026] WASAT 42 (S) Page 11 allow the owners an alternative accommodation cost of $18,490 under s 36(1)(b) read with s 38(1)(a) of the BSCRA Act. Conclusion 45 In summary, for all of the above reasons, we conclude that it is reasonable and appropriate to allow the owners' claim for site supervision costs in the amount of $21,600 as agreed by the parties and to allow alternate accommodation costs for five weeks at a weekly cost of $3,698 (based on Property 1 per Mr Deshon's report) or a total of $18,490. Consequently, we would make orders under s 36(1)(b) read with s 38(1)(a) of the BSCRA Act requiring the builder to pay to the owners the sum of $21,600 for site supervision costs and $18,490 for alternate accommodation costs. The payments will be required to be made by 10 August 2026. 46 Finally, as stated at [651] and [769] to [770] of Sweetman No 1, we will make final orders as follows: (a) a monetary order (rather than a remedial works order) under s 36(1)(b) read with s 38(1)(a) of the BSCRA Act requiring the builder to pay to the owners $177,201.55. Having considered the owners submission that the payment should be made within 14 days and the builder's submission that the payment should be made within 35 days, we consider is reasonable to require the builder to make the payment by 31 July 2026. This is on the basis that the Tribunal published Sweetman No 1 on 1 May 2026 and therefore the builder has been on notice of the impending payment since that date; (b) an order under s 46(1) of the SAT Act giving leave to the owners to withdraw complaint items 109.1, 109.9 and 109.10; and (c) an order under s 38(1)(b) of the BSCRA Act that we decline to make any order for complaint items 40, 54, 55, 62, 66, 72, 75, 83 and 109.7 and that those items are dismissed. Orders The Tribunal orders: 1. Pursuant to s 46(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), the applicants have leave to withdraw the following -- 11 of 12 -- [2026] WASAT 42 (S) Page 12 items of complaint and they are hereby withdrawn: items 109.1, 109.9 and 109.10. 2. 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 for the following items of complaint: 40, 54, 55, 62, 66, 72, 75, 83 and 109.7 and those items are dismissed. 3. Pursuant to s 36(1)(b) and s 38(1)(a) of the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), the respondent must, by 31 July 2026, pay the applicants costs of $177,201.55 to remedy the following items of complaint: 1, 2, 3, 5 to 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 to 50, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109.1, 109.2, 109.3, 109.4 to 109.5, 109.6, 109.8, 109.10a, 109.10b, 109.11, 109.12, 109.13, 109.13a, 109.14, 109.15, 109.16, 110, 111 and 112. 4. Pursuant to s 36(1)(b), s 36(1)(c) and s 38(1)(a) of the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), the respondent must, by 10 August 2026, pay the applicants $21,600 (site supervision). 5. Pursuant to s 36(1)(b), s 36(1)(c) and s 38(1)(a) of the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), the respondent must, by 10 August 2026, pay the applicants $18,490 (alternative accommodation). I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal. MS R PETRUCCI, MEMBER 9 JULY 2026 -- 12 of 12 --