VUKASINOVIC and HARIS DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD [2026] WASAT 65

[2026] WASAT 65 Page 1 JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : BUILDING SERVICES (COMPLAINT RESOLUTION AND ADMINISTRATION) ACT 2011 (WA) CITATION : VUKASINOVIC and HARIS DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD [2026] WASAT 65 MEMBER : MR E CADE, MEMBER MR J D ORR, SESSIONAL MEMBER HEARD : 20 JANUARY 2026 - 23 JANUARY 2026 DELIVERED : 2 JUNE 2026 FILE NO/S : CC 229 of 2025 BETWEEN : AIDA VUKASINOVIC First Applicant ZELJKO VUKASINOVIC Second Applicant AND HARIS DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD Respondent Catchwords: Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA) - Building service complaint - Whether building service not carried out in a proper and proficient manner or is faulty or unsatisfactory - Whether order to remedy or order to pay is appropriate - Home building contract complaint - Whether builder in breach of contract - Whether order should be made for payment of -- 1 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 2 compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract Legislation: Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), s 3, s 4(1), s 5(1), s 5(2), s 6(3)(b), s 11(d), s 17(a)(i), s 36(1), s 36(1)(a), s 36(1)(b), s 37(1), s 38(1)(a), s 38(1)(b), s 41(2)(d)(i) Home Building Contracts Act 1991 (WA), s 17(a)(i), Pt 2 Result: Application successful Category: B Representation: Counsel: First Applicant : Mr A Goldfinch Second Applicant : Mr A Goldfinch Respondent : In Person Solicitors: First Applicant : Stables Scott Second Applicant : Stables Scott Respondent : N/A Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Gemmill Homes Pty Ltd v Sanders [2018] WASC 179 Hippydayze Pty Ltd and Mener Group Pty Ltd [2019] WASAT 92 Marsh Outdoor Pty Ltd and Schnuriger [2021] WASAT 108 Vitte and Studio 8 Builders & Designers Pty Ltd [2013] WASAT 43 -- 2 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 3 REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: Background 1 Aida Vukasinovic and Zeljko Vukasinovic (together the owners) are the applicants in this proceeding. Haris Developments Pty Ltd (builder), represented by its sole director, Haris Hadjer, is the respondent to the proceeding. 2 The proceeding is within the original jurisdiction of the State Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) pursuant to the Home Building Contracts Act 1991 (WA) (HBC Act) and the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA) (BSCRA Act). In these reasons, all references to provisions of legislation are, unless stated otherwise, references to the BSCRA Act. 3 The proceeding concerns both a building services complaint and a home building work contract complaint (HBWC complaint) made by the owners to the Building Commissioner pursuant to, respectively, s 5(1) and s 5(2). The Building Commissioner has referred the owners' complaints to this Tribunal. The owners' complaint items 4 On 27 October 2024 the owners gave a notice of complaint containing 19 complaint items to the builder. This notice of complaint was then lodged with the Building Commissioner on 11 November 2024. 5 On 11 April 2025 the Building Commissioner referred the owners' complaint containing 33 complaint items to the Tribunal. This referral comprised 18 of the 19 complaint items lodged by the owners with the Building Commissioner, although those 18 complaint items were reformulated as 22 building service complaint items (complaint items 1 to 22) and 10 HBWC complaint items (complaint items 23 to 33). 6 The complaint items the Building Commissioner referred to the Tribunal, in summary, are: -- 3 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 4 Building service complaint items Item # Location Description of Complaint Item Remedy Sought 1 - 2 Roof frame - all areas on the house Missing and improperly installed perimeter tie downs Missing tie downs to be installed and existing tie downs to be remedied 3 - 5 External walls Various required weepholes are missing and existing weepholes are blocked with mortar and other materials Additional weepholes to be installed and existing weepholes to be free from mortar and other materials 6 - 17 Internal walls Voids and holes in mortar between bricks All brick joints to be remedied and filled with mortar as per plans and specifications 18 – 19 Theatre room and master bedroom Missing cavity flashing in walls Missing cavity flashing to be remedied/installed 20 Right side boundary wall (external) - Master bedroom and ensuite Face brick walls not jointed All external wall joints to be remedied. Joints to be flushed and brushed 21 Front elevation of house - Theatre and ensuite Front elevation not built to plans and specifications. Roof pitched from incorrect height and location - should have been pitched from one brick course higher. Correct brickwork to be installed and roof to be pitched as per plans and specifications 22 Roof space in living/dining room and kitchen Roof beams have not been installed in accordance with plans and specifications Roof beams to be installed in accordance with plans and specifications -- 4 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 5 HBWC complaint items Item # Term Description of Complaint Item Remedy Sought 23 Clause 10(b) in contract - Delays 260 working days to construct from January 2022. Should have been completed in or around January 2023. 22 months over contract and practical completion has not been achieved. Bring house to practical completion as soon as possible. 24 Clause 19(b) in contract - Delays and Extension of Time Builder has suspended carrying out works without reasonable cause and did not provide official written statement outlining cause and extent of the delay. Bring house to practical completion as soon as possible. 25 Withdrawn1 26 Withdrawn 27 Withdrawn 28 Legal costs2 29 - 33 Particulars of contract - specification prepared by Haris Developments The builder told us we needed to buy some items in 2022 so the construction of the house could progress (which were included as part of the fixed price contract). The builder told us that he would credit us for the full amount of all the items and materials that we purchased. $5,390 paid for kitchen appliances $2,230 paid for aircon deposit $7,564.43 for purchased flooring and tiles. $3,967.51 paid for tapware $882 paid for sinks 1 In complaint items 25, 26 and 27 and in their opening submissions the owners contended that as a consequence of the builder's breach of the written contract they are entitled to be paid compensation by the builder for the costs of holding the partially completed home and the interest they have paid their lender since 31 January 2023 for the partially completed home. However, in their closing submissions the owners abandoned this part of their claim. Consequently, we will now order these complaint items are withdrawn and dismissed. Therefore, we will not consider complaint items 25, 26 and 27 in these reasons. 2 We will not deal with the owners claim for their legal costs in complaint item 28 in these reasons as this claim should be dealt with as part of any costs claim made by the owners after the substantive issues in the proceeding are determined. -- 5 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 6 7 The proceeding was heard by us as a final hearing over four days between 20 January 2026 and 23 January 2026. Summary of the owners' contentions 8 In summary, the owners' contentions are: (1) They entered a written home building work contract with the builder on 11 July 2021 under which the builder is to construct a new one-storey brick and tile home (home or works) for the 'fixed price' of $249,500 on a lot in Hamond Park which they were then expecting to purchase and which they did in fact purchase in late December 2021(written contract); (2) The written contract requires the builder to build the home in accordance with the building plans, to commence the works within a certain time after the owners obtained title to the lot and then upon commencing the works to bring the home to practical completion within 260 working days (approximately one calendar year); (3) The builder commenced work on the home in early 2022 and so under the written contract is required to bring the home to practical completion by early 2023. However, the builder only intermittently carried out work on the home between early 2022 and April 2024 and since April 2024 it has carried out no work on the home at all; (4) As the builder did not bring the home to practical completion within 260 working days of commencing the works and because it has abandoned the works it is in breach of the written contract; (5) Mr Cable, a building inspector, found that complaint items 1 to 22 of the building work carried out by the builder under the written contract are works which were not carried out properly or proficiently or which are faulty or unsatisfactory; and (6) The Tribunal should require the builder to pay to them the sum of money Mr Peden, a costing expert, estimates is the cost of engaging a new builder to remedy those works carried out by the builder which were not carried out properly or proficiently or which are faulty or unsatisfactory as well as a sum he estimates is the cost to engage a new builder to bring the home to practical completion. -- 6 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 7 9 The amounts claimed by the owners are: Costs of rectification works $138,518.00 Costs of completion $306,406.06 Credit for items purchased by owners $19,151.94 Total $464,076.00 Summary of the builder's response 10 In summary, the builder's response is: (1) While some aspects of work the builder carried out on the home is work that was not carried out properly or proficiently or is faulty or unsatisfactory the required remediation works are minor. The builder says it should be given the opportunity to remedy the work it carried out on the home. (2) While it accepts it completed the home to the roof cover stage in April 2024 and has not carried out any further works on the home since that date, it says it is not in breach of the verbal cost-plus contract as, first, there is no date for completion of the home under this contract as it was a term of that contract the builder is to perform work on the home as and when the owners could afford to pay it to do work and, second, the owners are themselves in breach of the verbal cost-plus contract as they have refused to pay it on a cost-plus basis for the work he has already carried out as well as refusing to pay it on a cost-plus basis to perform the outstanding works on the home; (3) The sole purpose of the written contract the parties signed on 11 July 2021 is to allow the owners to obtain finance and the parties did not intend for the builder to build the home under that contract. The real contact under which the home is to be built is a verbal cost-plus contract which the parties also entered into on 11 July 2021; and (4) If the Tribunal does find the written contract is the contract under which the home is to be built, it accepts it is in breach of the written contract as it has not brought the home to practical completion as -- 7 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 8 required by that contract and it should therefore be required to complete the home rather than pay the owners compensation. However, should it be required to pay the owners compensation the builder says the proper amount is far less than the owners are claiming. Facts not in dispute 11 It is not in dispute in this proceeding and we find: (1) The parties signed a written contract on 11 July 2021 in the form of a standard Master Builder's Home Building Works Contract (For use in works without an architect). Attached to this contract is a one-page sketch depicting the home to be built signed by the parties on 11 July 2021 and a two page 'Custom Specifications' document also signed by the parties on 11 July 2021; (2) The owners obtained title to their lot in late December 2021; (3) The detailed building plans were not completed until 10 February 2022. These plans are, however, misdated as 10 February 2021; (3) A building permit was issued to the builder on 21 April 2022 which expired on 21 April 2024 and has not been renewed; (4) Between 11 July 2021 and May 2024 Mr Hadjer was a registered builder. However, for a period of time after May 2024 he was not registered as a builder but as the time of the final hearing he is again a registered builder; (5) The builder commenced work on the home in early 2022 (although whether this was in January 2022 or April 2022 is in dispute) and the home is completed to the roof cover stage. The last works carried out by the builder, being the roof cover stage work (which included some plumbing and electrical work), were carried out in or about April 2024; (6) In accordance with the schedule set out in the written contract the builder submitted the following payment demands to the owner: a. Deposit demand in the amount of $16,217.50 on 12 May 2022 which the owners on 13 May 2022 authorised their lender to pay and which was paid to the builder at around that date; -- 8 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 9 b. Siteworks stage demand and Slab Down stage demand in the amount of $52,395 on 4 July 2022 which the owners on 5 July 2022 authorised their lender to pay and which was paid to the builder at around that date; c. Brickwork Plate High Ground Floor stage demand in the amount of $49,900 on 17 January 2023 which the owners on 22 January 2023 authorised their lender to pay and which was paid to the builder at around that date; and d. Roof Cover stage demand in the amount of $49,900 on 21 May 2024 which the owners authorised their lender to pay on 19 July 2024 and which was paid to the builder at around that date; and (7) Three progress stage payments totalling $81,087.50 are yet to be demanded by the builder, these being: a. Lock-up stage in the amount of $37,425; b. Tiling and Cabinetry stage in the amount of $18,712.50; and c. Practical Completion stage in the amount of $24,950. Questions to be decided 12 The questions we are required to decide in this proceeding are: With respect to the building service complaints (1) Did the builder carry out a regulated building service? (2) Is any aspect of the regulated building service carried out by the builder work which has not been carried out in a proper and proficient manner or is faulty or unsatisfactory? (3) What is the proper remedy for any regulated building service carried out by the builder that is work which has not been carried out in a proper and proficient manner or is faulty or unsatisfactory? With respect to HBWC complaints (1) Is the home built under the written contract or under a verbal cost- plus contract? -- 9 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 10 (2) If the home is built under a verbal cost-plus contract, what are the terms of that contract? (3) If the home is built under the written contract, is the builder in breach of the written contract by not completing the home by the date required under the written contract or by abandoning the site? (4) If the builder is in breach of the written contract should the builder be required to complete the works or should it be required to pay compensation to the owners for loss or damage caused by the builder's breach? History of the proceeding 13 This proceeding was heard by the Tribunal as a final hearing between 20 and 23 January 2026. 14 Prior to the commencement of the final hearing and in accordance with its usual practice the Tribunal prepared a paginated hearing book for the use of the parties and the Tribunal at the final hearing. This hearing book comprised the documents lodged by the parties in accordance with programming orders made by the Tribunal (differently constituted) at various directions hearings prior to the final hearing. 15 At the commencement of the final hearing this hearing book was, with the consent of the parties, admitted into evidence and marked Exhibit 1. Significantly, Exhibit 1 contains a number of reports which had been lodged by the owners, these being: (1) Investigation Report by Jake Daley-Cook, Authorised Investigator from the Department of Energy, Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (DEMIRS) dated 11 April 2025, with associated Proposed Building Remedy Order dated 9 April 2025; (2) Plate Height Inspection Report by Paul Cable, Building Inspector and Registered Builder, dated 28 September 2023; (3) Roof Frame Inspection Report by Paul Cable, Building Inspector and Registered Builder, dated 28 September 2023; (4) Report 1: Rectification Works by Graham Peden, Quantity Surveyor and Construction Cost Consultant, dated 4 September 2025; and -- 10 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 11 (5) Report 2: Outstanding Works by Graham Peden, Quantity Surveyor and Construction Cost Consultant, dated 4 September 2025. 16 During the course of the hearing Exhibit 1 was supplemented by a number of documents tendered without objection by both the owners and the builder. The evidence Mr Cable 17 Mr Cable is a qualified bricklayer and registered builder who has a qualification in building and several decades of experience in the building industry in both the United Kingdom and Australia. Prior to giving his evidence Mr Cable confirmed he understood the obligations of an expert witness. Mr Cable was called by the owners to give evidence at the final hearing as to which aspects of the work carried out by the builder were 'non-compliant' with relevant Australian Standards and/or the building plans. 18 Mr Cable's oral evidence was, subject to some exceptions, consistent with the evidence he gave in his written reports. 19 Mr Cable was cross-examined at length by the builder. He also responded to some inquiries made with him by the Tribunal. 20 Mr Cable's evidence is as follows: Complaint items 1 - 2: The purpose of roof tie downs is to anchor the roof frame to the masonry structure to prevent the roof from lifting due to wind. In order to properly anchor the roof frame to the masonry structure the building plans require roof ties to be installed at intervals of 1,200 mm along the external wall. This was not done by the builder. The solution is to retrofit the missing tie downs at the intervals required by the plans. Complaint items 3 - 5: Weepholes are narrow channels inserted into the mortar at the bottom of brick work or above window cavities which allows moisture which enters the cavity between the external and internal walls (including condensation) to leave the cavity, as well as allowing air to enter the cavity and dry out any residual moisture. Moisture which does not dry out or escape from the cavity will enter the home where it is likely to damage paint, plaster, tiles and carpet as well encouraging the growth of -- 11 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 12 mould. Weepholes are usually installed by a bricklayer during the process of building a wall, but they may also be retrofitted to an existing wall. Weepholes should not be blocked by mortar dropped into the cavity when laying the internal brick work. Weepholes in many of the external brick walls are either missing or blocked and there are none at all in the right boundary wall. The solution is to retrofit weepholes at the required intervals of 1,200 mm but where they cannot be retrofitted, such as in the right boundary wall, it is necessary to demolish the wall and build it new with weepholes. Complaint items 6 - 17: There are voids in mortar between bricks in the internal walls. The purpose of this mortar is to stabilise the internal walls and assist them to bear loads. Mortar containing voids in the internal walls risks the walls cracking or being unable to bear the load of the tiled roof. The solution is to fill the voids with new mortar. Complaint items 18 - 19: Cavity head flashings are missing in the external walls of the master bedroom ensuite and theatre room immediately below the front elevation. This flashing is a waterproof material which is placed between the external and internal walls near roof height, particularly above windows and other voids in the wall. The purpose of the flashing is to channel moisture which enters the void at roof height along the length of the flashing to the end of wall where it can then drain into the cavity between the walls and then, via the weepholes at the base of the wall, drain out of the cavity. That is, this flashing assists in preventing moisture from entering the home. In the absence of demolishing and re-building the entire front elevation a solution is to prop the roof, demolish a course of bricks, install the missing flashing and then reinstall the demolished brick work. Complaint item 20: The face brick on the right external boundary wall is not jointed, flushed or brushed, that is, the mortar between the bricks on this face brick is not only unsightly but is irregular and contains voids. Voids in the external mortar of this wall will collect rain even though the face of wall is partially protected by the neighbour's boundary wall. Water collected in a void in this wall will transfer into the cavity behind the external wall and from there it may travel into the interior of the home. This is particularly the case with this boundary wall as contrary to the building plans it has no weepholes installed at the base of the -- 12 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 13 wall. However, because the length of this boundary wall is only 120 millimetres from the neighbouring boundary wall it is not possible to access the length of the wall so as to fill the voids in the external face of the mortar. Complaint item 21: The missing course of bricks in the front elevation was difficult for him to detect. When he attended the site, he could see the front elevation was different to the plans, but it was not at first obvious to him how it was different. In order to find out why it was different he needed to count each course of bricks in the front elevation before he realised that a course of bricks specified in the building plan was missing. This course of bricks should be installed, which will require the demolition and rebuilding of the entire front aspect of the home. Complaint item 22: A steel beam above the living/dining room is not positioned in accordance with the engineering drawings in the building (structure) plans. As this beam is part of the structure of the home it should be positioned only in accordance with the plans or repositioned in accordance with written advice from a structural engineer. A structural engineer will therefore now need to give written advice as to whether it is properly placed. It should also be welded to an adjoining beam, but this has not been done. 21 The evidence Mr Cable gave that was not consistent with the opinions in his reports relates to concessions he made when certain matters of detail were drawn to his attention by either the builder or the Tribunal. In the Tribunal's opinion, Mr Cable's concessions were appropriate and do not detract from his credibility. 22 Mr Cable's concessions included the following matters: (1) He accepts his evidence relates to the state of the home as it was on 28 September 2023, that is, prior to the installation of the roof cover; (2) He accepts that only a portion of the front elevation was not built in accordance with the building plans but that in practice it was not possible to build the front elevation in accordance with the building plans. He accepts the difference between the front elevation as built and as it appears in the building plans does not diminish the internal dimensions of any room in the home and -- 13 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 14 that the pitch of the roof above this elevation is in accordance with the plans; and (3) He accepts that if the steel beam above the living/dining room had been installed in accordance with the building plans it would have intruded into the interior of the living room and that it may therefore be appropriate to instal it in a different manner. However, it remains his opinion that any alternative installation must be considered by a structural engineer in order to determine if it is structurally sound. 23 Mr Cable rejected the suggestion put to him by the builder that he had tailored his opinions in order to advantage the owners or that he had entered into a corrupt agreement with the owners to share with them the benefit of an inflated compensation order. Mr Peden 24 Mr Peden has a qualification in building, a graduate qualification in quantity surveying and several decades of experience in quantity surveying in the building industry in both the United Kingdom and Australia. Prior to giving evidence Mr Peden confirmed he understood the obligations of an expert witness. 25 Mr Peden was called by the owners to give evidence at the final hearing both as to as to the cost of the works identified by Mr Cable as requiring remediation and as to the cost of bringing the home to practical completion in accordance with the building plans and specifications. 26 In his first report, Mr Peden estimates the cost of engaging a builder to carry out remedial works on the home to be: Rectification Works Amount To instal 77 tie downs between the masonry structure and the roof frame (that is, to instal a tie down to the roof frame at each of the intervals required by the building plans): 5,775 To attach two tie down rods to the roof frame: 250 Builder's preliminaries for these tasks: 8,000 Sub-total: 14,925 To form 32 weepholes at 1200mm centres at base of walls and also above window heads: 2, 560 Filling voids in mortar in 730 sq m of internal walls: 20,440 Install missing cavity flashing to front elevation (master bedroom ensuite and theatre room): 13,700 -- 14 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 15 Rectification Works Amount To secure steel beams in living room and to allow coordination with a structural engineer to arrive at a satisfactory solution and sign off: (provisional sum) 7,000 Builder's preliminaries for these tasks: 3, 500 Sub-total 47,200 Builder's margin, risk & attendance 8,000 Right side boundary wall demolition and replacement (if required) 22,800 Front elevation demolition and replacement (if required) 38,500 Total 77,138 27 In his second report, Mr Peden estimates the cost of engaging a builder to complete the works to be: Completion Works3 Amount Lock-up 84,265 Tiling and cabinetry 72,328 Practical completion 107,418 Sub-total 296,011 GST 29,601 Builder's margin, risk and attendance 32,000 Total 325,612 28 Mr Peden gave evidence that was, subject to some exceptions, consistent with his reports. 29 Mr Peden was cross-examined at length by the builder and he also responded to some inquiries made by the Tribunal. 30 The evidence that Mr Peden gave that was not consistent with his reports includes evidence that both supplemented the opinions he gave in his reports as well as some matters that were not consistent with the opinions he gave in his reports. 31 The evidence Mr Peden gave that supplemented the opinions in his reports relate to the following matters: (1) While he did estimate the actual cost to engage a builder to carry out the remediation and completion works, he also allowed an additional sum of $8,000 with respect to the rectification works and $32,000 in respect of the completion works for 'Builder's margin, risk & attendance'; 3 Mr Peden provided a detailed schedule of the works required within each of the remaining progress stages, but for the purposes of these reasons it is not necessary to set these out in full. -- 15 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 16 (2) He explained 'risk & attendance' represents as money the statutory liability a new builder would take on by performing remediation and completion works on the home. It also includes the risk that during the course of performing the works the builder might discover that it required more materials, trades, expertise or more expensive work practices than it had allowed for in an agreed contract price; (3) He explained that 'risk & attendance' is difficult to quantify as it depends on variables such as the willingness of a builder to take on remedial and completion work as well as the knowledge a builder could obtain about the quality of the existing works. This is because even should a prospective new builder inspect the existing works it was unlikely it would, through inspection, ever acquire complete knowledge about the risk it was taking on by performing such works; (4) The proper costing of small, risky works such as the works required to remediate and complete this home needs to take into account the fact that the building industry in Western Australia is working at full capacity. This means builders and trades are able to pick and choose what work they take on. Remediation and completion works, which by their nature are small works which carry a relatively high degree of risk, are unlikely to attract interest unless they are priced with an attractive allowance for 'builder's margin, risk & attendance'; (5) It will be a time-consuming task to locate a builder who might be interested in taking on small remedial or completion works. This is because builders would need to be approached individually, the work explained to them, they would then need to be willing to attend and inspect the site and even after all this it is likely that many would not agree to take on the work. It is difficult to say how long it would take to find a builder willing to take on the work, but it would be reasonable to allow 2 to 3 months for this step. The builder will then need to put together a team of trades with the relevant skills and then schedule these trades around their availability. It may therefore take around a year to actually carry out both the remediation and completion works; (6) The estimate for the completion works provided by EP Constructions WA given to him by the builder is a quote and -- 16 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 17 is therefore not a reliable basis on which to cost the completion of the home as it does not involve a contractual obligation to perform the works for the amount given in the quote. There is usually a substantial difference between the price of a build as estimated in a quote and the price which is later stated in a binding fixed price building contract; and (7) It is not proper, as suggested by the builder, to estimate the cost of completing the works by using the cost of the remaining stages in the written contract and then increasing this amount by a percentage to represent the increase in the price of labour and materials since July 2021.4 This is because, for example, the remaining contract price might not have represented the correct cost of labour and materials even at July 2021. As well, this methodology does not make any allowance for 'margin, risk & attendance' which is necessary to attract a builder to take on work that is, objectively, small and risky when there is plenty of other work they could take on instead. 32 The evidence Mr Peden gave that was not consistent with the opinions in his reports related to concessions he made when certain matters of detail were drawn to his attention by either the builder or the Tribunal. In the Tribunal's opinion, Mr Peden's concessions were appropriate and do not detract from his credibility. 33 Mr Peden's concessions included the following matters: (1) He accepts the roof cover on the home is tile rather than Colorbond as he originally stated; (2) He now accepts that roof ties can be fitted into the wall cavity and do not need to be attached to the internal wall, as he had originally stated; (3) He accepts his estimates of cost are only his best estimate and that the actual cost of performing the remedial and completion works may well turn out to be different. With respect to the remediation works, he accepts that his estimates would need to be revised down if there was a cheaper way of performing the 4 The cost of labour and material in the residential building industry increased 40.8% between September quarter 2020 to June quarter 2024: Australian Bureau of Statistics (2 August 2024), https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/insights-output-building-construction-prices, ABS Website, accessed 2 June 2026. -- 17 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 18 rectification works than the method he had relied upon in his costing. For example, he accepts that it would be much cheaper to apply a waterproof bitumen paint to the exterior of the boundary wall than it would be to demolish and re-build the wall. However, his task was to do his best to cost the rectification works that were proposed by Mr Cable and it was not for him to determine what rectification works were required nor how they were to be done. Therefore, he could not say whether applying a bitumen paint to the wall would in fact be an adequate way of waterproofing the wall; (4) He accepts there might be an alternative means of remedying the absence of weepholes in the right boundary wall other than through the demolition of the wall and construction of a new wall. While it is not for him to say what such an alternative should be it might include something like drilling into the masonry at the base of the exterior wall although this will be difficult to do as the neighbour's boundary wall is only 120 mm from the owner's wall, and to do this from inside the home would also be difficult as the weepholes need to be at the base of the exterior wall which is lower than the base of the interior wall; (5) He accepts it might well be proper to make an allowance in his estimate for the cost of goods purchased by the owners if these goods were to be supplied by the builder under the written contract; and (6) He accepts that the cost of the completion works for the outstanding progress stage payments not yet demanded by the builder under the written contract should be offset against his estimated cost of completing the home. 34 Mr Peden rejected the suggestion put to him by the builder that he had tailored his opinions in order to advantage the owners or that he had entered into a corrupt agreement with the owners to share with them the benefit of an inflated compensation order. Zeljko Vukasinovic 35 Mr Vukasinovic is the second applicant in this proceeding and he gave evidence on behalf of both owners. It is clear from Mr Vukasinovic's evidence that he was the sole point of contact between the owners and the builder. -- 18 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 19 36 Mr Vukasinovic's evidence is that: (1) The owners first met the builder a few weeks before 11 July 2021. At that time the owners intended to purchase a lot on which to build a new home. At their first meeting the owners discussed their budget with the builder and the type of home they wanted; (2) The owners operate a small multi-media business from their home. They have no experience in the building industry and relied on the builder to guide them through the process of building their home; (3) Between their first meeting and 11 July 2021 their ideas about the design of their home developed and various designs were provided to them by the builder. However, by 11 July 2021 they had settled on a design and a price with the builder and they believed that the builder would build this home for them for the agreed price of $249,500. They therefore entered into the written contract with the builder on 11 July 2021; (4) The owners at all times believed there was only one contract under which their home is to be built and this contract was the written contract dated 11 July 2021. All their discussions with the builder were on the basis of this 'fixed price' contract and they never had any discussions with the builder about entering into a cost-plus contract; (5) It took longer than they expected to acquire the lot and they only became the owners of it in late December 2021; (6) They believe the builder commenced work on the home by performing site works on the lot in January 2022; (7) The progress stage payments demanded by the builder were in accordance with the written contract and they authorised their lender to pay each of these demands; (8) The builder has never given them a notice of variation of price or a variation to the scope of works nor has it ever given them a notice of extension of time under the written contract; (9) They believe they did everything they reasonably could to engage with the builder and they were patient even when the building work was not completed by January 2023. However, it became -- 19 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 20 clear during 2023 that the builder was not progressing the works and was avoiding contact with them as it would not answer their telephone calls, it would not respond to their emails and nor would it respond to their text messages; (10) In September 2023, after many failed attempts to speak to the builder, they engaged a solicitor who on 27 September 2023 wrote to the builder and demanded that the builder resume work on the home and also meet with the owners to agree a program for the completion of the works, failing which the owners would exercise their legal rights under the contract and the BSCRA Act. This letter also notified the builder the owners would engage a building inspector to inspect the works. The builder did not, however, either resume work on the site and nor did it agree to meet with the owners; (11) In about April 2024 the builder installed the roof cover on the home. This was the last work the builder carried out on the home; (12) On 27 October 2024 the owners gave a notice of complaint containing 19 complaint items to the builder and because the builder did not resume work on the home they lodged their complaint with the Building Commissioner on 11 November 2024; and (13) All that they really want is for their home to be completed in accordance with the written contract but as the builder has done no work on the home since about April 2024, it has not given them a concrete plan about when it would recommence the remaining work and that it let the building permit expire on 22 April 2024 they have no faith the builder will ever do any more work on their home. 37 Mr Vukasinovic was cross-examined extensively by the builder. In cross-examination Mr Vukasinovic accepted some matters that were put to him by the builder but rejected others. In particular: (1) He accepts the building plan referred to in the written contract is the one-page sketch which is signed by the owners and the builder and is dated 11 July 2021 that appears in Exhibit 1 immediately before the written contract. That is, he accepts the building plan referred to in the written contract is not the five pages of plans in Exhibit 1 that come immediately after the written contract dated 10 February 2021; -- 20 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 21 (2) He accepts the building plans dated 10 February 2021 are misdated and should be dated 10 February 2022; (3) He rejected the suggestion the owners on 11 July 2021 entered into a verbal cost-plus contract which was to be the true basis on which the home was to be built; (4) He accepted that shortly after 11 July 2021 the owners paid the builder $17,000, that this was not a payment required under the written contract and that he had not previously mentioned this payment in this proceeding. However, he rejected the suggestion the payment is evidence that the contract under which the home is to be built is a cost-plus contract. When asked by Mr Hadjer to explain why he paid this money to the builder when it was not required under the written contract he explained that Mr Hadjer had asked him to assist him with some 'capital' as a 'small boost' to its business which would be repaid by the builder through a credit in that amount on a progress stage payment or, if the owners wanted to increase the scope of works, by giving a credit in that amount to a price variation. However, the builder did not ever give the owners a credit in that amount on a progress stage payment and nor did the owners, with one exception dealt with below, ever ask the builder to increase the scope of works. When asked to explain why he had not mentioned this payment before he explained that as he gave the money in cash he thought that it would be futile to request the builder repay it; (5) With one exception, he rejected the suggestion the owners had demanded changes to the home which they agreed would increase the price of the home. The exception involved his request that additional power points be installed in the garage for which he agreed to pay the builder $3,000. However, he rejected the suggestion his request for additional power points demonstrated that the contract under which the home is built is a cost-plus contract. Rather, he said, the builder had contacted him and told him that the electrician was attending the site on a certain day and he could attend the site and tell the electrician if he wanted anything extra installed. He did this and told electrician that he would like additional power points installed in the garage. He knew he would have to pay extra for these power points as they were not included in the written contact. The electrician then installed the additional power points in the garage and the -- 21 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 22 builder requested $3,000 for this work which he then paid to the builder; (6) While he agreed he met with the builder on site and had a discussion about the steel beams in the living room he denies he authorised the builder in this conversation to depart from the building plans. He said he left matters such as this to the builder as neither he nor his wife are qualified to say whether any aspect of the works is structurally sound; and (7) He rejected the suggestion he had tailored his evidence in order to advantage the owners or that he had entered into a corrupt agreement with Mr Cable and Mr Peden to share with them the benefit of an inflated compensation order. He said that Mr Cable and Mr Peden had in fact been chosen, engaged and instructed by his solicitors and that neither he nor Ms Vukasinovic had exchanged more than a few words with Mr Cable or Mr Peden before the final hearing. Haris Hadjer 38 Mr Hadjer is the sole director of the builder. He gave evidence on behalf of the builder. 39 Mr Hadjer's evidence is: (1) He is a registered builder and is the builder's authorised building supervisor. He is the sole director of the builder and is the only person associated with the builder; (2) He is a graduate engineer and until about 10 years ago he worked as an engineer. He has been employed as an engineer by international companies in Western Australia, the United Kingdom and Iraq; (3) He founded the builder on his return to Western Australia about 10 years ago and over that time it has built about 50 homes in Western Australia; (4) He understands that many people who are building a home would like a home that is of a better standard and so will cost more than the amount they can borrow from a lender. The arrangement he will enter into with such an owner is that he will agree to create a 'fixed price' contract and he will issue progress stage demands under this contract. This 'fixed price' contract allows the person -- 22 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 23 to obtain finance and the progress stage demands he gives to the owner will permit the bank to transfer funds to the builder. However, the builder does this on the express understanding that the 'fixed price' contract and the progress stage demands are fictions and the actual contract under which the home is to be built is, in reality, a verbal cost-plus contract with the work to be done as and when the owners can afford to pay for it be done; (5) It was necessary to keep this verbal cost-plus contract hidden from the owners' lender and so he did not confirm it in writing with them. However, it is confirmed by the $17,000 payment the owners made to the builder before it commenced work on the home and the $3,000 payment the owners made to the builder during the course of the construction. (6) It is also confirmed by the many changes the owner made to the building plans between 11 July 2021 and the commencement of construction in April 2022. The builder notes that the only design included in the written contract is a one-page sketch signed by the owners and the builder on 11 July 2021. As the builder correctly says, this sketch is not sufficient for a builder to use to construct a home and further plans needed to be drawn up which were finalised, after many changes demanded by the owners, on 10 February 2022 (despite being actually dated 10 February 2021) as ' Version: REV A'. He says these changes were not the subject of a written variation as to give the owners a written variation would have affected their ability to obtain finance. The absence of these documents as well as the absence of any notice of extension of time shows that this home is not being built under a 'fixed price' contract but is being built under a cost-plus contract; (7) It is yet again confirmed by the purchases made by the owners of certain goods for use in the home, which would make no sense unless they and not the builder were the ones liable to pay for those goods. That is, it would make no sense for the owners to buy the goods if the builder was liable to purchase and instal those items under a fixed price contract as any savings made by these advance purchases would benefit of the builder and not the owners; (8) The way the builder went about building this home is very different to how it deals with owners under a 'true fixed price' -- 23 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 24 contract. When he negotiates with owners who are truly entering into a 'fixed price' contract he will require the owners to enter into a preparation of plans agreement (PPA) under which the owners are required to pay for the work carried out by the builder in preparing the 'fixed price' contract such as the cost of preparing the building plans. This can include, as it did here, up to 120 hours of work to draft a custom set of building plans. In this way, if the owners decide they do not want to enter into the 'fixed price' contract the builder is not out of pocket. The absence of a PPA in this matter shows that the home is not built under a true 'fixed price' contract but rather is built under a cost-plus contract; (9) Due to the owners' refusal to honour the verbal cost-plus contract the builder has itself had to pay for the substantial increase in the cost of labour and materials that emerged after the COVID-19 emergency, as well as the costs associated with the increased scope of works required by the owners. The builder eventually stopped work on the home when it could no longer afford to cover these cost increases; (10) At 11 July 2021 he owned the home he lived in with his wife and children and two investment properties. However, as he has given a personal guarantee to the builder he has had to sell two of his homes in order to finance the builder's operations and he and his family are now living in a small apartment. He says the builder cannot fund any more work on the home unless he sells the apartment in which he is living, which will leave him and his family homeless; (11) The builder believes the owners are looking to exploit the builder's willingness to sign the sham written contract. That is, the owners are now improperly relying on the written contract to require the builder to pay for the substantial but undocumented increases to the scope of works they had verbally agreed to with the builder and for the substantial increases in the cost of labour and materials since 11 July 2021 which they are liable for under the verbal cost-plus contract; (12) The owners are responsible for the delay in completing the home because they have refused to honour the verbal cost-plus contract and pay for the increased scope of works or for the increase in the cost of labour and materials since 11 July 2021; -- 24 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 25 (13) As to the alleged defects in the home: a. He accepts the steel beam above the living/dining room has not been installed in accordance with the plans. However, if it had been installed in accordance with the plans it would have intruded into the ceiling of that room. Therefore, as a matter of practical necessity, this beam needed to be installed other than in accordance with the plan. When he realised this needed to be done he telephoned the structural engineer who had approved the building plans who gave him verbal approval to instal the beam in the way he did. He also met with Mr Vukasinovic at the site and told him about the problem and was given the owners approval to change the installation of the beam. The join between the beams was welded when the roof tiles were installed; b. He accepts the building plans show 33 rows of bricks in one area of the front elevation although there is only 32 courses of bricks in that area, as there is in all other areas of the front elevation. However, just because of this the front elevation should not be demolished and re-built. This is because as a matter of practical necessity the course of brick the owners claim is missing cannot now be installed without then changing the roof. The missing course of bricks does not alter the internal dimensions of any internal room. Consequently, if this course of bricks is installed then major changes will be required to the remaining areas of the front elevation and to the roof, which would make those areas inconsistent with the plans all for no practical benefit; c. He accepts cavity head flashings should be installed in the external walls of the master bedroom ensuite and theatre room, but this flashing can be easily and cheaply installed; d. He accepts that not all roof ties have been installed at the intervals indicated in the plan. This is partly because roof ties are not required on a tiled roof and partly because if they were to be installed at those intervals then some of them would then need to be placed above a window void, which is impractical. Roof ties are not required for a tiled -- 25 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 26 roof because tiles are heavy and so hold down the frame and also because, if wind does get under the roof, it blows individual tiles off the roof but does not lift a section of the roof. The roof ties that can be seen in the photographs taken by the building inspector were properly installed at the time the roof tiles were installed. If additional ties are needed, they can be easily and cheaply installed; e. The missing mortar in the internal walls can be easily rectified by one or two tradespersons in one day or possibly two days at the rate of about $1,000 to $1,500 a day. These trades can, when doing that work, also easily rectify the visible portions of each end of the boundary wall; and f. The boundary wall does not need to be demolished. This is because weepholes are not needed in a boundary wall but if they are required they can be easily drilled into the mortar at the bottom of the wall. If there is a need to waterproof the external part of the wall this can be done easily by putting on a coat of bitumen paint and also, with the neighbour's approval, putting a cover over the gap between the two boundary walls. Consideration and findings - Building service complaints Did the builder carry out a regulated building service? 40 Under s 5(1) an owner may make a complaint to the Building Commissioner that a regulated building service has not been carried out in a proper or proficient manner or is faulty or unsatisfactory. A 'regulated building service' under s 3 is 'a building service carried out by a registered building service provider' that is carried out for another person under a home building work contract or other contract for gain. 41 We are satisfied the builder was a regulated building service provider at the time it carried out works on the home and that it did so pursuant to a contract for gain. While we note the parties dispute whether the contract under which the building service was carried out by the builder was the written contract or a verbal cost-plus contract this controversy is not relevant to our consideration of this building service complaint. -- 26 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 27 42 Should the Building Commissioner refer a building service complaint to the Tribunal under s 11(d) the Tribunal is able, under s 38(1)(a), to make a building remedy order if satisfied the regulated building service has not been carried out in a proper and proficient manner or is faulty or unsatisfactory. If not so satisfied the Tribunal is, under s 38(1)(b), to decline to make a building remedy order. We note the Building Commissioner did refer complaint items 1 - 22 to this Tribunal as a building service complaint. 43 As this Tribunal (differently constituted) explained in Marsh Outdoor Pty Ltd and Schnuriger [2021] WASAT 108 at [34] the phrase 'has not been carried out in a proper and proficient manner or is faulty or unsatisfactory' within s 5(1) and s 37(1) is a broad expression which incorporates two distinct limbs, such that: a) the description 'in a proper and proficient' attaches to the manner in which the regulated building service has been carried out; b) the phrase 'is faulty or unsatisfactory' makes it clear that this element attaches to the regulated building service itself … ; c) those limbs are not exclusive, with the result that deficiencies in a regulated building service may in certain circumstances fall under both limbs; and d) whether either limb is engaged is to be determined on an objective basis. 44 Under s 36(1), the Tribunal may make a building remedy order requiring the person who carried out the regulated building service to do one or more of the following: (1) Remedy the building service in the manner specified in the order; (2) Pay to the owners the costs of remedying the building services which the Tribunal considers reasonable and which it specifies in the order; and (3) Pay to the owners a specified sum of money to compensate the owners for the failure to carry out the building service in a proper and proficient manner for faulty or unsatisfactory work. Complaint items 1 - 2: roof tie-downs 45 Mr Cable says the certified BG Structural Engineers drawing detail T4 requires the home's '[r]oof to be tied down in accordance with -- 27 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 28 AS1684' and the 'Tie Down Specification Roof Cladding: Tiled …' detail D.1.1 requires the roof beams to be tied down to the external wall plate at '…each side of corners … and at 1200ctrs max elsewhere'. However, Mr Cable says that his inspection shows that while some tie downs have been installed they are not installed at the required intervals of 1,200 mm. 46 In response, the builder does not dispute that at the time Mr Cable inspected the home on 28 September 2023 the roof beams were not tied down at intervals of 1,200 mm. Nonetheless, the builder says: (1) It believes that the roof beams have, since 28 September 2023, been tied down at intervals of 1,200 mm; (2) The relevant Australian Standards do not require the roof beams of a tiled roof to be tied down at all, let alone at intervals of 1,200 mm; and (3) It is impractical to tie down the roof beams at intervals of 1,200 mm as this would require installing tie downs through multiple window cavities. 47 When considering these complaint items, we have examined the certified BG Structural Engineers drawing and we are satisfied it does require the roof beams for this tiled roof to be tied down at each corner and then at intervals of less than 1,200 mm. We also reviewed AS1684 and we are satisfied this standard also requires a home's roof beams to be tied down at intervals of no less 1,200 mm. Finally, the Tribunal is satisfied that the BG Structural Engineers drawing detail T4 and AS1684 set out minimum standards for the construction of a timber framed home with a tiled roof for wind classification N1, with one purpose of this standard being to prevent wind damage to the roof and roof frame. 48 In our view it is practical to tie the roof beams down at these minimum intervals even with window cavities in the wall as all that is required to be done is to instal a tie down at each side of a window cavity. 49 While we note the builder's declaration that it believes that the roof beams have, since 28 September 2023, been tied down at intervals of 1,200 mm we note the builder provided no details that would persuade us its belief is correct. For example, the builder did not say that it had engaged a tradesperson since 28 September 2023 to instal any additional tie down straps and nor did the builder say it had inspected the home and had satisfied itself that additional tie down straps had, since 28 September 2023, been installed. Indeed, given the builder does not -- 28 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 29 accept that tie down straps should have been installed at intervals of 1,200 mm or less and that it would be impractical to do so, we doubt the builder did engage a tradesperson to instal additional straps or that it ever did inspect the home to determine if such additional straps had ever been installed. 50 As the roof frame is not tied down to the external masonry walls at the required intervals we are satisfied and we find the roof framework carried out by the builder on the home is a regulated building service which was not carried out in a proper and proficient manner or is faulty or unsatisfactory. We are therefore required to make a building remedy order under s 36(1). 51 The owners seek a building remedy order under s 36(1)(b) the builder pay them the cost of installing the missing tie downs. The owners say that an order under s 36(1)(a) that the builder remedy the building service 'would be wholly unrealistic, unworkable and of no utility'. The owners also note that the sole director of builder, Mr Hadjer, has stated he has twice applied for a violence restraining order against the owners and has twice made complaints to police about the owners. 52 When considering this issue, we are mindful of the following: • The owners do not have a right to elect an order under s 36(1)(b) that the builder pay them the costs of remedying the work, but they may express a preference for such an order: Gemmill Homes Pty Ltd v Sanders [2018] WASC 179 [134]. • Due to Mr Hadjer's attempts to obtain a violence restraining order against the owners and his complaints about them to police he appears to be afraid the owners will inflict violence upon him (although the owners deny they want to do this) so, at least from the builder's perspective, its relationship with the owners has irretrievably broken down. • That the relationship between the builder and the owners has broken down is less important in this matter than it would be if the home had reached practical completion and was inhabited by the owners. That is, this is not a situation where the builder needs to enter the owner's residence to perform works. • The owners have lost confidence the builder will ever perform any further works on the home. The owners since April 2024 have repeatedly asked the builder to recommence work on the -- 29 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 30 home by email and text message but the only response the builder has made to those requests is to say it is willing to carry out work on the home so long as the owners agree to increase the contract price: Hippydayze Pty Ltd and Mener Group Pty Ltd [2019] WASAT 92 [126]. • The owners have lost confidence the builder has the financial capacity to perform any of the remedial works. This is because the builder has said the reason it stopped work on the home in April 2024 is because it could no longer afford to build it under the written contract and it has said that it will only perform more work on the home if it is paid more for each of the remaining progress stage payments than is set out in the written contract. • The owners have lost confidence in the workmanship and skill of the builder. This is because the builder denies the work it has carried out is not proper and proficient or is faulty or unsatisfactory. With respect to these complaint items the owners say that despite the tie downs being stated as necessary in AS1864 and in the structural engineers drawing the builder still believes a tiled roof does not need to be tied down to a masonry wall. 53 We are satisfied for these reasons that, in the words of the owners, an order under s 36(1)(a) the builder remedy the building service 'would be wholly unrealistic, unworkable and of no utility'. That is, we are satisfied and we find that the relationship between the parties has irretrievably broken down, that the owners have justifiably lost confidence in the skill of the builder to perform the remedial work but most importantly we are satisfied the builder does not have the financial resources to perform any significant remediation work on the home. 54 We therefore find an order under s 36(1)(b) the builder pay to the owners the costs of installing the missing tie downs is justified. While we accept Mr Peden did concede that tie downs can be installed into the masonry cavity and that more tie downs are in place than he had thought we are nonetheless satisfied that the estimate of $6,000 he gave in his first report for the cost of installing the tie downs is reasonable. This is because the cost of installing tie downs in the cavity will be very nearly the same as the cost Mr Peden estimated of installing them on the interior wall. -- 30 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 31 Complaint items 3 - 5: external walls, missing weepholes and blocked weepholes 55 Mr Cables inspection reveals, first, while some weepholes have been installed in the front, left and rear side walls of the home that they are not installed at the required intervals and that some of the weepholes that have been installed are blocked by mortar that has dropped into the cavity between the external and internal brick walls and, second, that weepholes have not been installed at all in the right boundary wall. This, they say, is contrary to the requirement in the BG Structural Engineers drawings that brickwork be 'in accordance with AS 3700 and NCC'. 56 The owners say the absence of weepholes in the right boundary wall is the most significant problem as this wall has been built to within 120 millimetres of the neighbour's boundary wall with the result it is not possible to now instal the required weepholes, with the result the wall needs to be demolished and built new with weepholes. 57 In response, the builder says it does not dispute that some weepholes in the external walls are blocked by mortar, that some of the weepholes that are installed are not at the intervals stated in the AS 3700 and the NCC and that no weepholes have been installed in the right boundary wall. However, the builder says that blocked weepholes can be cleared by drilling through the weepholes and that all missing weepholes (including any that might need to be installed in the right boundary wall) can also be installed by drilling into the mortar at the external base of the wall. The builder also says weepholes do not need to be installed in boundary wall. 58 When considering these complaint items, we examined the certified BG Structural Engineers drawing and we are satisfied these do require the brickwork to be in accordance with AS 3700 and NCC. Relevant to these complaints, these standards do require weepholes to be pipes or ducts installed immediately above the footing under the external walls and to be free of 'mortar or other material that will prevent their proper functioning'. The BG Structural Engineers drawing requires weepholes to be installed in all the masonry walls in the home, which in the Tribunal's opinion requires that they also, contrary to the builder's contention, be installed in the right boundary wall. 59 We accept Mr Cable's report that some weepholes are missing, particularly in the right boundary wall where there are none, and that even those weepholes that have been installed are not at the required -- 31 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 32 minimum intervals and that some are obstructed by mortar dropped in to the cavity. We also accept Mr Cables evidence that weepholes are a necessary part of a system which channels moisture in the wall cavity to leave the building. For the reasons given by Mr Cable we also accept his evidence as to the importance of moving moisture out of the home's cavity. 60 We therefore find that the builder's construction of the external walls of the home is a regulated building service carried out by the builder that has not been carried out in a proper and proficient manner as these walls are not constructed with an adequate number of unobstructed weepholes and in the case of the right boundary wall with any weepholes at all. We are therefore required to make a building remedy order under s 36(1). 61 The owners seek a building remedy order under s 36(1)(b) the builder pay them the cost of clearing the obstructions between the existing weepholes and installing the missing weepholes. 62 For the reasons set out above, which we shall not repeat, we are satisfied an order under s 36(1)(a) that the builder remedy the building service 'would be wholly unrealistic, unworkable and of no utility'. We therefore find an order under s 36(1)(b) the builder pay to the owners the costs of clearing the obstructions in the existing weepholes and installing the weepholes in the right boundary wall is justified. 63 The solution recommended by Mr Cable is to drill new weepholes into the external face of the front, left and back walls and to demolish the right boundary wall and build it new with weepholes. The demolition of the right boundary wall, we note, would also remedy complaint item 20. 64 Mr Peden provided an estimate of the cost of installing additional weepholes to the front, left and rear walls of the home to be $2,560 and the cost of demolishing the right boundary wall and rebuilding it with weepholes to be $22,800. 65 There was little controversy as to the cost of installing weepholes to the front, left and rear walls of the home. This is because those walls are able to be accessed from their external face. We find Mr Peden's estimate for the cost of these works to be reasonable. 66 There was much controversy, however, about how to remedy the missing weepholes in the right boundary wall. This is because the right boundary wall of the home and the boundary wall of the neighbour's -- 32 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 33 home is only 120 mm away making it impossible to access this wall externally. There was extensive discussion with Mr Peden as to whether it might be possible to knock out some bricks from the internal right boundary wall and then drill a weephole through the external wall but it was ultimately accepted that this was not an adequate solution as the weephole needed to be installed at the base of the external wall which was significantly lower than the internal wall.5 It was also postulated that doing this work might damage a termite barrier. 67 Regrettably, therefore, the only practical solution to installing weepholes in the right boundary wall is to prop the roof, demolish the wall and build it new with weepholes and when doing so to make sure the external face of the wall is properly jointed. We find Mr Peden's estimate for the cost of these works to be reasonable. Complaint items 6 - 17: voids and holes in mortar in brickwork of internal walls 68 It is not in dispute the mortar between bricks in the internal walls was well below standard in that it contained many voids. We accept Mr Cables evidence that mortar between bricks in the internal walls is necessary to prevent the walls from cracking and is also necessary to support the weight of the tile roof. 69 For these reasons we are satisfied and we find the internal brick work carried out by the builder on the home is a regulated building service which was not carried out in a proper and proficient manner or is faulty or unsatisfactory as it contains numerous voids. We are therefore required to make a building remedy order under s 36(1). 70 The solution recommended by Mr Cable is to fill the voids with mortar. We accept this is the proper solution for these complaint items. For the reasons set out above, which we shall not repeat, we are satisfied an order under s 36(1)(a) that the builder remedy the building service 'would be wholly unrealistic, unworkable and of no utility'. We therefore find an order under s 36(1)(b) the builder pay to the owners the costs filling the voids in the brickwork of the internal walls is justified. 71 Mr Peden estimates the cost of filling the voids in the internal walls to be $20,440. While the builder did not dispute the voids in the mortar in the internal walls needed to be filled with fresh mortar, he said this 5 Mr Hadjer appeared at one time to concede it was not possible to instal weepholes in the right boundary wall by drilling them from the inside of the home: ts, 283, 23 January 2026. -- 33 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 34 could be done by one or two tradesmen over 1 to 2 days for no more than $2,500. 72 We accept Mr Peden's point that the building industry at this time is working at capacity. We also accept Mr Peden's point that small remedial works need to offer an attractive margin but we think that this is less important when it is carried out along with a more substantial piece of work such as the demolition and rebuilding of the right boundary wall. In our view, the work of filling the voids in the internal walls can be carried out by a bricklaying team for a cost of $5,000 at the same time the right boundary wall is demolished and built new. Complaint items 18 - 19: missing cavity head flashings 73 It is not in dispute the cavity head flashings in the front elevation are missing and need to be installed. We accept Mr Cable's evidence that these cavity head flashing are a necessary part of a system which channels moisture which enters the wall cavity at roof height to leave the building. We also accept his evidence about the importance of channelling moisture out of a building. 74 For these reasons we are satisfied and we find the work on the front aspect of the home carried out by the builder is a regulated building service which was not carried out in a proper and proficient manner or is faulty or unsatisfactory as does not contain cavity head flashings. We are therefore required to make a building remedy order under s 36(1). 75 The solution recommended by Mr Cable is to prop the roof, demolish a row or several rows of bricks, instal the missing cavity head flashing and replace the demolished rows of bricks. We accept this is the proper solution for these complaint items. For the reasons set out above, which we shall not repeat, we are satisfied an order under s 36(1)(a) that the builder remedy the building service 'would be wholly unrealistic, unworkable and of no utility'. We therefore find an order under s 36(1)(b) the builder pay to the owners the costs installing the missing cavity head flashings on the front aspect of the home is justified. 76 Mr Peden estimates the cost of installing the missing flashing in the manner recommended by Mr Cable to be $13,700. We accept Mr Peden's point that this is skilled work, that the roof needs to be propped in order to carry out the work and that it is remedial work that is by its nature not attractive to builders. We therefore accept that Mr Peden's estimate that this work will cost $13,700 to be reasonable. -- 34 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 35 Complaint item 20: face brick walls not jointed on right boundary wall 77 Given the orders we will make with respect to complaint items 3 to 5 which will involve the demolition of the right boundary wall and building it new this complaint item falls away. We will therefore dismiss this complaint item. Complaint item 21: missing course of bricks front elevation 78 It is clear from Mr Cable's evidence that one length of the front elevation of the home has one less course of bricks than is stated in the building plans and that for this reason this aspect of the home looks different to how it is depicted in the sketch attached to the written contract. 79 It is also clear from Mr Cable's evidence this missing course of bricks does not affect the internal dimensions of the home, that the pitch of the roof above the missing bricks is in accordance with the building plans and that the only effect of the missing course of bricks is that one area of the front elevation looks slightly different to how it is depicted in the sketch attached to the contract. Indeed, so slight is this difference that it took some time for Mr Cable to determine the cause of the difference was a missing course of bricks. 80 It is also clear from Mr Cable's oral evidence that it would be a complex task to instal the missing course of bricks. This is because the installation of an additional course of bricks would change the pitch of the existing roof such that for the roof to then be in accordance with the building plans the front portion of the roof cover and frame would need to be removed and replaced with a custom designed new frame and with a new roof cover. 81 The builder agrees with Mr Cable's evidence on these matters and adds that for this reason it is obvious the building plans are in error in requiring an additional course of bricks on this part of the front aspect and that it was therefore proper for the builder to omit this course of bricks when building the home. 82 Mr Peden estimates the cost of installing the missing course of bricks to be $38,500, but Mr Peden was not asked to estimate the cost of removing and replacing the roof frame and roof cover which, as it turns out, would be required once the missing course of bricks is installed. The actual cost of the work would therefore likely be several multiples of the cost estimated by Mr Peden. -- 35 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 36 83 We therefore agree with the builder the building plans are in error in requiring an additional course of bricks on a length of the front aspect of the home. 84 We also accept that the only effect of the omission of this course of bricks is to slightly change the look of the front aspect of the home from how it is depicted in the plans. That is, we are satisfied the missing course of bricks does not diminish the look of the front aspect of the home and that it is only noticeable to someone who compares it to the sketch attached to the written contract. We are also mindful that the owners themselves attach little importance to this complaint item. 85 Therefore, while we are satisfied the construction of the front aspect of the home is a regulated building service we are not satisfied it was not carried out in a proper and proficient manner or that it is faulty or unsatisfactory. We therefore must decline to make a building remedy order under s 36(1) and we will dismiss this complaint item. Complaint item 22: roof beam not installed in accordance with plans 86 It is clear from Mr Cable's evidence that one beam above the living room/dining room is not positioned as required by the building (structural) plans and that at the time he inspected the home the beam had not been welded as required to an adjoining beam. It is also clear from Mr Cable's evidence that if the beam had been positioned as required in the building (structural) plans that it would have intruded into a decorative cathedral ceiling which would have been unsightly. In Mr Cable's opinion, while it was desirable to place the beam in a different position this is a change to the building (structural) plans which should be approved in writing by a structural engineer. As Mr Cable is not a structural engineer, he is not able to say whether the position of the beam is structurally sound. 87 While the builder agrees with almost all of Mr Cable's evidence it says it consulted with the owners about repositioning the beam who approved this change, and that he has verbal approval from a structural engineer to reposition the beam. He also says that since Mr Cable's inspection the beam has been welded to an adjoining beam. 88 We note here that clause 3(a) of the written contract states that if there is a discrepancy or ambiguity in the drawings that the builder must refer the matter to the owners who must direct the builder in writing what is to be done. Under that clause, if the owner fails to direct the builder -- 36 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 37 what is to be done within 5 working days of the request the builder may determine what is to be done. 89 We have considered the evidence given by Mr Cable and the builder and we agree with both that if the beam was installed in accordance with the plans, it would be unsightly as it would intrude into the cathedral ceiling and that it was proper to reposition the beam to avoid this. However, we agree with Mr Cable the beam is a structural component of the home which should be repositioned only in accordance with the written advice of a structural engineer. Given that the beam supports the roof frame and tiles we do not accept that it is sufficient for the builder to obtain verbal advice from an engineer to reposition the beam. We also do not accept that the owners could approve the repositioning of the beam. 90 For these reasons we are satisfied and we find the placement of this beam is work that is a regulated building service which was not carried out in a proper and proficient manner or is faulty or unsatisfactory as it is a structural component of the home which has not been placed in a position approved in writing by a structural engineer. We are therefore required to make a building remedy order under s 36(1). 91 The solution recommended by Mr Cable is to consult with a structural engineer as to whether the placement of the beam is satisfactory. For the reasons set out above, which we shall not repeat, we are satisfied an order under s 36(1)(a) that the builder remedy the building service 'would be wholly unrealistic, unworkable and of no utility'. We therefore find an order under s 36(1)(b) the builder pay to the owners the costs of consulting with a structural engineer is justified. Mr Peden estimates the cost of this, as a provisional sum, to be $7,000. While we think that this is high for the work required, we do accept it requires an engineer to inspect the beam on site and within the context of some extensive remediation works that will be carried out on the right boundary wall. We therefore accept Mr Peden's estimated cost for this work to be reasonable. 92 In summary, the builder remedy orders we will make are: Items 1 - 2 $6,000 Items 3 - 5 $22,800 Items 6 - 17 $5,000 -- 37 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 38 Items 18 - 19 $13,700 Item 20 dismissed Item 21 dismissed Item 22 $7,000 Total $54,500 93 However, as we will explain later in these reasons, we will make a HBWC remedy order requiring the builder to pay the owners compensation for the increase in the cost to them of now bringing their home to practical completion which will make allowance for the amounts given by Mr Peden for 'builder's margin, risk and attendance'. Because we expect the builder who will carry out the completion works will be same builder who will carry out the remedial works we will not make such an allowance in this building service remedy order for 'builder's margin, risk and attendance'. Consideration and findings - HBWC complaints Is the home built under the written contract or under a verbal cost-plus contract? 94 It is not in issue in this proceeding that: (1) The parties signed the written contract on 11 July 2021; (2) The written contract is a 'fixed price' contract; and (3) There are no text messages, emails or any other written document that confirms the parties entered into a cost-plus contract. 95 This written contract meets the requirements for a home building work contract set out in s 4(1) of the HBC Act as it is a contract between an owner and builder for the performance by the builder of home building work, it is not a cost plus contract and it is a contract which is more than $7,500 and less than $500,000, it is in writing setting out all the terms conditions and provisions of the contract, it shows the date of the contract, it is signed by the owners and the builder and it includes the required notice. -- 38 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 39 96 We note here that each of the progress stage payment demands given by the builder to the owner were given shortly after the stage the subject of the demand was completed and was for the amount set out in the written contract. We also note there is no evidence the builder ever demanded an additional 'cost-plus' stage payment when it sent its demands to the owners and that the builder only suggested the home was being built under a verbal cost-plus contract well after it had stopped work on the site. Despite this, we will consider the circumstances which the builder says proves the home is, in truth, built under a cost-plus contract which includes: (1) The $17,000 payment which Mr Vukasinovic made to the builder in cash before the works commenced; (2) The $3,000 payment which Mr Vukasinovic made to the builder for the installation of additional power outlets in the garage; (3) The purchase by the owners of certain goods for use in the home; (4) The absence of a written price variation, variation as to scope of works or notice of extension of time; and (5) The absence of a PPA prior to entering into the written contract. 97 With respect to the $17,000 payment made by the owners to the builder we note that while both parties agree that Mr Vukasinovic made this payment in cash to the builder at some time in late 2021, they are in dispute as to the purpose this payment was made. Mr Vukasinovic says that the payment was made at the builder's requests to provide the builder with 'capital' and it would be returned to the owners at some time during the construction of their home in the form of a credit. The builder appears, however, to say this payment was made for variations to the scope of the works which resulted in an increased contract price with the reason that no written notice of the price variation was given to the owners being the need to conceal this transaction from their lender. 98 After considering these matters we are satisfied they do not prove the parties entered into a 'cost-plus' contract for the building of the home. This is because we believe that during the construction period between April 2022 and April 2024 there were substantial increases in the cost of labour and materials so if the home had truly been built under a 'cost plus contract we would have expected the builder to have demanded the owners pay these price increases at each of the progress stages. However, it is clear the builder did not do this. -- 39 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 40 99 With respect to the $3,000 payment and the $17,000 payment made by the owners to the builder we also find these payments were made for the reasons told to us by the owners and not because they were payments under a verbal cost-plus contract. 100 The issue of the purchase of goods by the owners is, in our view, more difficult to understand outside of a cost-plus contract. The builder's contention that it would make no sense for the owners to make an advance purchase of goods to be used in the home unless the owners were responsible for purchasing them under a cost-price contract has some force. The only explanation the owners were able to give the Tribunal as to why they purchased the goods is that the builder asked them to make those purchases and warehouse them until needed. Ultimately, we consider this issue is neutral as it is as equally likely the owners purchased the goods to avoid a price increase as it is that an undercapitalised builder who wanted to avoid an increase in the price of goods would ask an owner to purchase them. 101 It is clear that both parties agree the builder has never given the owners any written notices under the contract. The owners say this is because the builder has had no right to do this as, apart from requesting additional power points in the garage, they have not made any request to the builder to change the scope of works in the written contract. The builder says that the owners made many changes to the scope of works in the period 11 July 2021 to February 2022 but that it was agreed between them that no variation would be issued to the owners as to do this would alert their lender to the true arrangement under which the home was to be built, which was a cost plus agreement. After considering this matter we are satisfied that it is more likely than not that the reason why the no such notices were issued by the builder is for the reasons given by the owners, which is that the builder had no basis for issuing a notice under the written contract rather than because the parties had agreed to create no documents that might indicate to the owners lender the true arrangement under which the home was to be built. This is because we do not accept that a variation due to a change in design would indicate to a lender that the home was being built under a cost-plus contract, that is, it does not indicate anything other than the owners were wanting to change the design. 102 Similarly, we find the absence of a PPA prior to the parties entering into the written contract does not indicate anything one way or another about the type of contract under which the home was to build. This is because a PPA could apply to a home to be built under a cost price -- 40 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 41 contract just as much as it would apply to a home to be built under a 'fixed price' contract. 103 Most importantly, however, we observe there is no contemporaneous evidence in the way of an email or text message that directly confirms the builder's contention that the parties entered into a cost-plus contract on 11 July 2021 or that the parties conducted themselves on the basis that they had entered into such a contract. The best that can be said about the builder's contentions is that apart from his own oral evidence there is some evidence which is at best neutral as to whether the parties did enter into such contract. However, the contrary position is much stronger. That is, there is considerable contemporaneous evidence that there is only one contract under which the house was to be built which was the written contract. 104 Therefore, we find the parties did not enter into a verbal cost-plus contract on 11 July 2021. Consequently, we also find the written contract is the contract under which the home is built. If the home is to be built under the written contract, is the builder in breach of the written contract by abandoning the site or by not completing the home by the date required under the written contract? 105 For the purpose of this proceeding the most significant terms of the written contract are: (1) Clause 1 of the 'Agreement' which is the promise by the builder that 'Subject to the Conditions' it will 'complete the Works shown on the Drawings and described or referred to in the Specification and elsewhere in the Contract Documents'; (2) Clause 2 of the 'Agreement' which is the promise by the owners that they will pay the builder the 'sum of Two Hundred and Forty Nine Thousand and Five Hundred Dollars ($249,500) including GST (Contract Sum) as adjusted in accordance with the contract, at the times an in the manner specified in the Conditions.'; (3) Appendix I: a. item 2, 'Time to commence the Works' is 20 working days; b. item 3, 'Time from commencement to complete the Works' is 260 working days; and -- 41 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 42 c. item 7, the home is to be build '[b]y progress of the Works in stages', being: Deposit (6.50%) 16,217.50 Siteworks (6.00%) 14,970.00 Slab down ground floor (15.00%) 37,425.00 Brickwork plate high ground floor (20.00%) 49,900.00 Roof cover ground floor (20.00%) 49,900.00 Lock-up (15.00%) 37,425.00 Tiling and Cabinetry (7.50%) 18,712.50 At practical completion (10.00%) 24,950.00 Total contract sum $249,500.00 (4) Conditions of Contract, 'Discrepancies and Ambiguities', clause 3(a) which states 'If the Builder finds any discrepancy or ambiguity in the Drawings or between the Drawings and the Specification, the Builder must immediately refer the matter to the Owner who must direct the builder in writing what is to be done. If the Owner fails to direct the Builder within 5 Working Days of the request for directions, the Builder may determine what is to be done'; (5) Conditions of Contract 'Date for Commencement and Time for Completion, clause 10(a) 'The Builder must commence the Works within the number of Working Days in Appendix I Item 2 of whichever is the latest of: … (ii) The owner delivering to the Builder evidence of title to the land …'; -- 42 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 43 (6) Conditions of Contract 'Owner's Access to Site', clause 13(a) which in substance permit the owner or a duly appointed presentative to have access to the site and to inspect and view progress of the Works during the builder's normal working hours; (7) Conditions of Contract 'Variations': a. clause 16(a) - (c) which in substance requires variations agreed to by the builder to be in writing, to set out the cost and terms of the variation, to show the date of the variation and to be signed by the parties; and b. clause 16(g) which in substance does not enable the builder, except by agreement with owners in accordance with clause 16(c), as a consequence of law or because of a delay beyond 45 working days after the date of the contract which is caused solely by the owners under clause 25(h) or 34, to vary the contract by reason only of an increase in the costs of labour or materials to be incurred by the builder; (8) Conditions of Contract 'Delays and Extension of Time', which requires the builder by no later than the date of Practical Completion to notify the owners in writing of the cause and extent of the delay and entitles the builder to be paid reasonable costs arising from any extension of time. 106 It is clear that the written contract requires, subject to a variation given under the contract, a notice of extension of time6 or due to certain circumstances set out in the written contract (such as by a consequence of law, which are not relevant in this proceeding), the builder to bring the home to practical completion within 260 working days of commencing the work. 107 It is also clear that the builder under the written contract was entitled, if it thought it had grounds to do so: a. To have required the owners to produce to the builder evidence of title to the land on which the works are to be executed, and to have terminated the contract if the owners failed to do so within 10 working days of such a request: clause 7; and 6 Under clause 19(b) the builder is not required to submit any notice of extension of time up to the days of practical completion. -- 43 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 44 b. To have issued a written notice of price increase to the owners if, due to delay by the owners the builder is not able to obtain a building permit within 45 working days of the date of the contract. However, if such an increase exceeds 5% of the contract sum then owner may terminate the contract within 10 working days of receiving such a notice: clause 34 (d). 108 However, the builder accepts it did none of these things. 109 The builder says that as it commenced work on the home no earlier than 22 April 2022 and the home it is not yet at practical completion. We are satisfied that given the date on which the building permit was issued and the dates on which the builder gave the owners its first progress stage demand that it is more likely than not that the builder commenced work on the home after 22 April 2022. 110 We therefore also satisfied that the builder, under the written contract, was required to bring the home to practical completion by no later than 8 May 2023 and in not doing so it is in breach of the written contract. We are also satisfied and we find that because the builder has not carried out any work on the home since April 2024, that it has let the building permit lapse, that it has let its site insurance lapse and that it does not possess the finance necessary to fund the next stage of the works that it has abandoned the site. 111 We are satisfied that the builder's failure to bring the home to practical completion by 8 May 2023 as required by the written contract and by abandoning the site in April 2024 that the builder is in breach of clause 10(b) and clause 19(b) and item 3 of Appendix I of the written contract. We are also satisfied that the owners have suffered loss and damage due to the builder's breach and that the quantum of loss and damage suffered by the owners must include the amount above the contract price which it will now cost them to complete their home. 112 Mr Peden estimates the cost of engaging a new builder to complete the home including GST and 'builders margin, risk and attendance' to be $325,612. 113 The builder contends that any amount we order it to pay the owners to complete the home should not include the cost of goods purchased by the owners, it should not include an amount of 'builders margin, risk and attendance' and it should be reduced by the sum of the progress stage payments remaining under the written contract. That is, the builder says -- 44 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 45 Mr Peden's estimate of the cost of completion of the home should be reduced as follows: Mr Peden's estimate of the cost of completion: $325,612.00 Minus $19,151.94 Minus $32,000.00 Minus $81,087.50 Total $193,372.56 114 We agree with only one part of the builder's contentions which is that the owners' loss and damage should be limited to the amount above the contract price which it will now cost them to complete their home. That is, we will deduct from Mr Peden's estimate the remaining progress stage payments or $81,087.50. However, we also agree with the owners that the goods they purchased at the invitation of the builder should properly be included in these progress stage payments and so will add to Mr Peden's estimate $19,151.94 which is the cost to the owners of those goods. 115 As the builder accepts the owners also paid the builder $17,000 in late 2021 for which they were given no value by the builder we also find the owners have suffered loss and damage in this amount. Are the owners entitled to compensation due to the builder's breach? 116 Pursuant to s 41(2)(d)(i) we may order the builder 'pay specified compensation for loss or damage' caused by any breach of the written contract or of a provision of Part 2 of the HBC Act. 117 Pursuant to s 17(a)(i) of the HBC Act each complaint by the owners that the builder is in breach of the contract must not be a breach in respect of which a building remedy order may be made. The Tribunal is satisfied that each HBWC complaint made by the owners is not a breach in respect of which a building remedy order may be made. 118 Pursuant to s 6(3)(b) each breach complaint made by the owners must be made not more than 3 years after the cause of action arose. In this case, the Tribunal is satisfied that as the builder commenced to be -- 45 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 46 in breach on 9 May 2023 that each of the owners' complaints was made within the required 3 year period. 119 We note the written contract does not limit the compensation the owners may claim for delay by setting a rate for liquidated damages. Therefore, if the owners are entitled to claim compensation for their losses due to a breach by the builder then their compensation is not limited by the written contract and they are able to claim their actual losses.7 120 For these reasons we are satisfied under s 43(1) that complaint items 23 and 24 and 29 to 33 inclusive are HBWC complaint items which have been referred by the Building Commissioner to this Tribunal. Given our findings the written contract is a home building work contract and that the builder is in breach of the written contract we are now justified in making a HBWC remedy order under s 41(2)(d)(i) that the builder pay to the owners the following specified compensation for the loss and damage they have suffered by the builder's breach: Mr Peden's estimate of the cost of completion: $325,612.00 Minus remaining stage payments $81,087.50 Plus, costs of goods purchased by owners $19,151.94 Plus, money paid to the builder $17,000.00 Total: $280,676.44 Orders The Tribunal orders: 1. Pursuant to s 38(1)(b) of the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), in relation to complaint items 25, 26 and 27, the Tribunal declines to make a building remedy order and those items are dismissed. 7 See Vitte and Studio 8 Builders & Designers Pty Ltd [2013] WASAT 43. -- 46 of 47 -- [2026] WASAT 65 Page 47 2. Pursuant to s 36(1)(b) of the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), by no later than 17 July 2026 the respondent must pay $54,500 to the applicants, this being the cost of remedying complaint items 1 to19 inclusive and complaint item 22. 3. Pursuant to s 43(1)(a) and s 41(2)(d)(i) of the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), by no later than 17 July 2026 the respondent must pay compensation to the applicants in respect of complaint items 23 and 24 and 29 to 33 inclusive, in the amount of $280,676.44. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal. MR E Cade, MEMBER 2 JUNE 2026 -- 47 of 47 --