SWEETMAN and SKYTREE HOMES PTY LTD [2026] WASAT 42

Case law · Western Australia · 2026

[2026] WASAT 42 Page 1 JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : BUILDING SERVICES (COMPLAINT RESOLUTION AND ADMINISTRATION) ACT 2011 (WA) CITATION : SWEETMAN and SKYTREE HOMES PTY LTD [2026] WASAT 42 MEMBER : MS R PETRUCCI, MEMBER MR S BURNS, SESSIONAL MEMBER HEARD : 21 OCTOBER 2025, 22 OCTOBER 2025, 23 OCTOBER 2025 AND 1 DECEMBER 2025 FINAL WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED 27 JANUARY 2026 DELIVERED : 1 MAY 2026 FILE NO/S : CC 55 of 2025 BETWEEN : JOSHUA SWEETMAN First Applicant CAROLINE SWEETMAN Second Applicant AND SKYTREE HOMES PTY LTD Respondent Catchwords: Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA) - Regulated building service complaint - Large number of items of complaint - -- 1 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 2 Whether building service not carried out in proper and proficient manner or is faulty or unsatisfactory - Role of costings experts - Nature and extent of complaint items - Irretrievable breakdown - Reasonable costs of remedial works - Proportionality in building remedy orders - Exercise of discretion to make or to decline to make building remedy order - Principles for deciding whether order to remedy or order to pay is appropriate - Monetary order sought by owners - Remedial works order sought by builder - Turns on own facts Legislation: Building Act 2011 (WA), s 3 Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), s 3, s 5(1), s 11(1)(d), s 36(1), s 36(1)(a), s 36(1)(b), s 36(1)(c), s 38(1), s 51 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 46(1) Result: Application party successful Category: B Representation: Counsel: First Applicant : Mr M Lang Second Applicant : Mr M Lang Respondent : Mr S Mintz & Mr W Vogt Solicitors: First Applicant : Lang Litigation and Construction Law Second Applicant : Lang Litigation and Construction Law Respondent : Vogt Legal Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Beladinejad and UCPM Pty Ltd [2025] WASAT 52 Brooks and Gransden Building Company Pty Ltd [No 2] [2021] WASAT 86 Faqiri and A & M Construction Group Pty Ltd [2022] WASAT 79 Gemmill Homes Pty Ltd v Sanders [2018] WASC 179 -- 2 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 3 Kos and DND Building Co Pty Ltd [2020] WASAT 95 Nelson v Mardesic (1998) 22 SR (WA) 42 Robinson v Harmon (1884) 1 Exch 850, 855; (1884) 154 ER 363 Sanders and Gemmill Homes Pty Ltd [2017] WASAT 41 Shami and Teo [2017] WASAT 73 Sweetman and Skytree Homes Pty Ltd [2025] WASAT 104 Trengrove and Celebration Nominees Pty Ltd [2012] WASAT 65; (2012) 80 SR (WA) 77 Willshee v Wescourt Ltd [2009] WASCA 87 -- 3 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 4 Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 8 Relevant procedural history ................................................................................................... 9 Evidence .............................................................................................................................. 10 Non expert witnesses ....................................................................................................... 11 Expert witnesses .............................................................................................................. 13 Issues ................................................................................................................................... 14 Consideration ....................................................................................................................... 15 Whether building work carried out by the builder is not proper and proficient or is faulty or unsatisfactory?............................................................................................................. 15 Builder admits liability for items of complaint and costings experts agree on costing ... 16 Complaint item 35 - Scullery - bowed wall between scullery and drop zone ............. 16 Complaint item 36 - Cabinetry/benchtops - raw edges exposed ................................. 17 Complaint item 38 - Games room - cavity sliding door installation incomplete ........ 18 Complaint item 41 - Guest ensuite - sealant not bonded to substrate ......................... 18 Complaint item 51 - Bathroom 1 door - door jambs not adequately protected ........... 18 Complaint item 52 - Bathroom 1 - grout voids ........................................................... 19 Complaint item 56 - Bedrooms 1, 2, 3 and 4 - pin partially dislodged from hinges ... 20 Complaint item 57 - Laundry cabinet - not sealed at wall at abutments ..................... 20 Complaint item 58 - Laundry cabinet doors - blemishes ............................................ 21 Complaint item 59 - Bedroom 1 WC - tiles exhibits grout haze ................................. 21 Complaint item 60 - Bedroom 1 WC - voids in tile grout ........................................... 22 Complaint item 61 - Bedroom 1 WC - Toilet door does not have lift hinges ............. 23 Complaint item 64 - Balcony - Omission of movement joints in the tiling system .... 24 Complaint item 65 - Balcony - tile joints around the steel column, not correctly installed........................................................................................................................ 25 Complaint item 67 - Balcony - ceiling board loose ..................................................... 25 Complaint item 69 - Hot water takes too long to flow through powder room tap fixtures ......................................................................................................................... 26 Complaint item 71 - Bedroom 1 - grout haze on tiling - cleaning of tiles not complete ..................................................................................................................................... 26 Complaint item 73 - Bedroom 1 ensuite - grout missing in shower floor ................... 27 Complaint item 78 - Bedroom 1 - door latch............................................................... 27 Complaint item 79 - Ceiling - insulation ..................................................................... 28 Complaint item 80 - Balcony - skirting tiles outside bedroom window ...................... 29 Complaint item 81 - Balcony - Efflorescence ............................................................. 30 Complaint item 82 - Cabana decking - poorly cut....................................................... 30 -- 4 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 5 Complaint item 85 - Cabana - ceiling coating damage ............................................... 31 Complaint item 86 - Colorbond fence near pool - construction residue ..................... 32 Complaint item 88 - Pool toilet block building - no down pipe fitted......................... 33 Complaint item 90 - Cracking at fascia/wall junction on the south elevation of the alfresco......................................................................................................................... 34 Complaint item 92 - Pool toilet block building - inappropriate barge capping fixings35 Complaint item 103 - Roof defects.............................................................................. 36 Complaint item 104 - Bedroom 2 - Windowsill does not have fall away from building to facilitate drainage .................................................................................................... 37 Complaint item 106 - Garage door bowed .................................................................. 38 Complaint item 108 - Elevation windowsills front and side - do not have gradient away from the building ................................................................................................ 38 Complaint item 109.13a - Upstairs bathroom shower ................................................. 39 Complaint item 109.15 - Master en-suite shower........................................................ 39 Complaint item 109.16 - External floor waste pits ...................................................... 40 Complaint item 111 - Main bedroom - door bolt not installed properly ..................... 41 Builder Disputes items of complaint and the costings experts agree on costing ............. 41 Complaint item 39 - Stair wall - no horizontal control joint between floors causing cracking ....................................................................................................................... 41 Complaint item 53 - Bathroom 1 floor - inadequate gradient for surface water to flow towards floor waste and to prevent water ponding on tiled surface ............................ 43 Complaint item 54 - Bathroom 1 - heated towel rails loose ........................................ 45 Complaint item 55 - Roof pressure flashing - not fixed at 100-millimetre centres ..... 46 Complaint item 62 - Bedroom 1 ensuite - towel rail loosely fitted to wall ................. 47 Complaint item 63 - Bedroom 1 ensuite - inadequate gradient for surface water to flow towards floor waste and to prevent water ponding on tiled surface .................... 48 Complaint item 66 - Balcony - chipped tile ................................................................ 49 Complaint item 89 - Pool toilet block building - hole in the wall ............................... 50 Complaint item 112 - Roof tie down system ............................................................... 51 Builder disputes items of complaint and the costings experts do not agree on costing .. 52 Complaint item 1 - kitchen - fault in power circuit ..................................................... 53 Complaint item 2 - Bedroom 1, level 1 - sanitary drainage system does not function correctly ....................................................................................................................... 54 Complaint item 3 - Guest bedroom - shower leaking onto toilet wall ........................ 55 Complaint items 5 to 34 - Painting - various ............................................................... 57 Complaint item 37 - Games room - sliding door cavity wall is bowed ....................... 58 Complaint item 40 - Guest bedroom - sliding door fitted with incorrect hardware .... 60 Complaint item 42 - Guest ensuite toilet door - does not have lift off hinges............. 61 -- 5 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 6 Complaint item 43 - Garage door - not operating properly ......................................... 62 Complaint item 44 - Entry door - water ingress .......................................................... 64 Complaint item 45 - Entry door handle - does not open from the outside .................. 68 Complaint item 46 - Stairs - adequate control joints not provided .............................. 69 Complaint items 47 to 50 - Timber tongue and groove flooring cupping, lippage, excessive gap and peaking........................................................................................... 71 Complaint item 68 - Bathroom 1 - Cavity sliding door does not properly open ......... 76 Complaint item 70 - Mud and powder room - floor waste have not been recessed into the slab ......................................................................................................................... 78 Complaint item 72 - Bedroom 1 en-suite - water leaking through vanity ................... 80 Complaint item 74 - Window reveals - intermittently are not straight and exhibit deflection ..................................................................................................................... 82 Complaint item 75 - Laundry ceiling - water stains .................................................... 84 Complaint item 76 - Floor - out of level ...................................................................... 85 Complaint item 77 - Theatre room - wall lights .......................................................... 85 Complaint item 83 - Cabana - gutter not fitted ............................................................ 87 Complaint item 84 - Cabana lights - not functioning correctly ................................... 89 Complaint item 87 - Pool toilet block building - wall penetration not sealed ............. 90 Complaint item 91 - Alfresco roof north elevation - barge capping not adequately fixed ............................................................................................................................. 90 Complaint item 93 - Southside - air-conditioning service penetrations not sealed and not draining into pipework .......................................................................................... 91 Complaint item 94 - External South elevation - cracking at wall junctions facilitating moisture ingress ........................................................................................................... 92 Complaint item 95 - South Elevation - construction residue in plumbing pipework .. 94 Complaint item 96 - Cracking at fascia/wall junction on the south elevation of the alfresco......................................................................................................................... 94 Complaint item 97 - Alfresco roof north elevation - barge capping not adequately fixed ............................................................................................................................. 94 Complaint item 98 - Pool toilet block building - inappropriate barge fixings ............ 94 Complaint item 99 - Southside - air conditioning service penetrations not sealed and not draining into pipe work ......................................................................................... 94 Complaint item 100 - External south elevation - cracking at wall junctions facilitating moisture ingress ........................................................................................................... 95 Complaint item 101 - South elevation - construction residue in plumbing pipework . 95 Complaint item 102 - Alfresco - rangehood ducting incomplete ................................ 95 Complaint item 105 - Wall is not straight near family room kitchenette .................... 96 Complaint item 106 - Garage door bowed .................................................................. 98 Complaint item 107 - Front elevation balcony fascia screws popping........................ 98 -- 6 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 7 Complaint item 109.1 - Plumbing - No up-to-date ASCON drawing submitted to DMIRS ........................................................................................................................ 99 Complaint item 109.2 - Disconnector gully side of house - incorrect collar............... 99 Complaint item 109.3 - Stack riser behind fridge recess - no inspection opening installed and not compliant with AS3500.................................................................. 102 Complaint item 109.4 and 109.5 - Pool pump area - reflux value not installed correctly and grates not installed correctly ................................................................ 103 Complaint item 109.6 - Pool ablution block - Basin waster does not meet AS3500 105 Complaint item 109.7 - Hot water Unit 1 - excessive time for hot water to reach powder room and upstairs children's bathroom ......................................................... 107 Complaint item 109.8 - Downstairs guest room shower ........................................... 110 Complaint item 109.10a - Powder room ................................................................... 111 Complaint item 109.10b - Powder room ................................................................... 111 Complaint item 109.11 - Upstairs bathroom (children) basin - slow draining .......... 111 Complaint item 109.12 - Upstairs bathroom - bath ................................................... 115 Complaint item 109.13 - Upstairs bathroom - shower .............................................. 115 Complaint item 109.14 - Master en-suite bath .......................................................... 115 Complaint item 110 - Upstairs hallway and bathroom - flickering lights ................. 115 Complaint item 111 - Main bedroom - door bolt not installed properly ................... 116 Summary of findings - items of complaint and costings. .................................................. 116 Other costs claimed ....................................................................................................... 117 General overheads ..................................................................................................... 117 Site supervision and general labour ........................................................................... 121 Accommodation and living away from home allowance .......................................... 123 Should the Tribunal make a remedial works order or a monetary order? ..................... 127 Principles in deciding whether to make a remedial works order or a monetary order .. 128 Owners' position ............................................................................................................ 129 Builder's position ........................................................................................................... 132 Exercise of the Tribunal's discretion ............................................................................. 136 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 143 Orders ................................................................................................................................ 144 -- 7 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 8 REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: Introduction 1 The procedural history of this matter is set out in detail in the recently reported decision of the Tribunal (differently constituted) in Sweetman and Skytree Homes Pty Ltd [2025] WASAT 104. 2 It is sufficient to note here that the applicants, Mr and Mrs Sweetman (owners) made a building service complaint (complaint) to the Building Commissioner under s 5(1) of the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA) (BSCRA Act) concerning building work carried out by the respondent, Skytree Homes Pty Ltd (builder) in the construction of their two storey residential dwelling in the Perth suburb of Myaree (property). The complaint was lodged on 15 August 2024 and accepted by the Building Commissioner's delegate on 25 September 2024 who then referred 111 complaint items1 to the Tribunal on 28 January 2025 under s 11(1)(d) of the BSCRA Act, at which time it became a proceeding in the Tribunal. 3 The owners contend that the regulated building service has not been carried out in a proper and proficient manner or is faulty or unsatisfactory, with many of the complaint items admitted by the builder. The owners say the relationship between the parties has severely and irretrievably broken down and that they have lost confidence in the builder's competence and trustworthiness such that they are no longer prepared to allow the builder back to do any of the remedial work which they say is extensive, in particular the flooring complaint. The owners urge the Tribunal to make a 'monetary' order rather than a 'remedial works' order in respect of the numerous complaint items before the Tribunal. 4 In contrast, the builder asserts that it was, and remains prepared to attend the property to undertake all the required remedial work, and therefore the Tribunal should make a 'works' order following Kos and DND Building Co Pty Ltd [2020] WASAT 95 (Kos), even in circumstances where the Tribunal finds that there has been an irretrievable breakdown in the relationship between the owners and the builder. 1 Complaint items 1 to 4 were refused by the Building Commissioner's delegate and complaint items 5 to 112 were referred to the Tribunal. -- 8 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 9 5 Of the 111 complaint items before the Tribunal, for the reasons set out below, we have determined that most items of complaint require remedial work and we have therefore exercised the Tribunal's discretionary powers under s 38(1) of the BSCRA Act to make a building remedy order (BRO) (see summary below at [651]). The key issue, and on what this decision turns, is what BRO should we make under s 36(1) of the BSCRA Act. That is, should we make a 'works' order under s 36(1)(a) of the BSCRA Act as urged by the builder or a 'monetary' order under s 36(1)(b) and/or s 36(1)(c) of the BSCRA Act as urged by the owners, or more than one order? 6 In the reasons which follow, we explain why we have decided to make a monetary order requiring the builder to pay an amount to the owners under s 36(1)(b) of the BSCRA Act. We also make other orders (see below following [772]). Relevant procedural history 7 Following the first directions hearing on 11 February 2025, the Tribunal referred the matter to mediation. The parties were not able to resolve their dispute or narrow down the issues in regard to any of the 111 items of complaint. 8 Subsequently, the Tribunal made its usual orders programming the matter to a final hearing. The orders required, among other things, for the owners and the builder to file with the Tribunal and to provide a copy to the other party all the documents on which they wish to rely to prove their case, including contractual documents and any variations of it, expert reports, photographs and quotations and other documents relevant to the costing of the complaint items to be determined by the Tribunal. 9 The final hearing was held over three consecutive days commencing on 21 October 2025. A further day on 1 December 2025 was required to complete hearing the evidence. The owners attended the final hearing in person and were legally represented. Mr Stewart Robert James Glover, a director of the builder, attended the hearing in person and was legally represented. 10 On the first day of the final hearing, the owners informed us that they were not pressing complaint items 109.9 and 109.10.2 By these two items of complaint, the owners allege slow drainage in the powder room and the downstairs guest bathroom. We gave leave for the owners to 2 ts 38, 21 October 2025. -- 9 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 10 withdraw these two items of complaint. That still leaves in excess of 100 items of complaint for determination, some of which are minor items. 11 Following the last day of the final hearing, on 1 December 2025, we made orders for the parties to file their closing written submissions by 23 January 2026, which was subsequently extended to 27 January 2026. On 28 January 2026, following the filing of the last written submission, we reserved our decision. Evidence 12 In accordance with the Tribunal's usual practice in matters of this nature, the final hearing was conducted on the basis that all of the documents filed with the Tribunal would be regarded as being in evidence, subject to any objection. While there was no objection to the admission of any of the documents into evidence, the builder's legal representative made submissions regarding various documents. We will set out and deal with the concerns raised where relevant when we deal with the complaint items later in these reasons (see below in [25] to [650]). 13 During the hearing, the Tribunal marked the following documents, to which we have had regard for the purpose of determining the issues as set out below in [24], as exhibits: • hearing book (pages 1 to 1,181) prepared by the Tribunal on 26 September 2025 (Exhibit 1); • owners' updated Complaint Schedule including update of column 6 to include margin of 20% and GST of 10% for amount claimed for each complaint item by the owners and a new column 12 for costs where the costings expert agreed (pages 1 to 31) dated 20 October 2025 handed up at hearing (Exhibit 2); • owners' photographs taken on 21 October 2025 at approximately 6.17 am attached to various emails (pages 1 to 24) handed up at hearing (Exhibit 3); • owners' expert costing report prepared by Mr Greg Mithen, in A3 format, undated (pages 1 to 12) handed up at hearing (Exhibit 4); • owners' internet search of accommodation costs, undated (pages 1 to 8) handed up at hearing (Exhibit 5); -- 10 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 11 • builder's plans and specifications approved by City of Melville dated 1 July 2021 (pages 1 to 124) handed up at hearing (Exhibit 6); • builder's revised proposed drawings prepared by Chisholm design (Job 2005) dated 6 August 2021 (pages 1 to 62) handed up at hearing (Exhibit 7); and • builder's Certificate of Compliance for major plumbing work (Notice Number P294929) dated 15 June 2023 (page 1) handed up at hearing (Exhibit 8). 14 We had the benefit of hearing from two non-expert witnesses individually, Mr Sweetman and Mr Glover, on the first day of the final hearing. Their respective witness statements were accepted as evidence- in-chief and they were asked questions by each party. We also asked questions of the non-expert witnesses. 15 Following that, three of the expert witnesses, Mr Lachlan Deshon and Mr Greg Mithen (for the owners) and Mr Christopher Lee Jones (for the builder) gave their evidence concurrently. The parties asked questions of the experts and while they gave evidence, the experts also asked questions of each other. The three experts remained while the other two experts, Mr Luke Kneebone and then separately Mr Daniel Lewis (both for the owners), were called to give evidence. The experts took the opportunity to ask questions of each other. We asked questions of all the experts. 16 Mr Mithen and Mr Jones (costings experts) filed a 'Joint Expert Conferral Report (Costing Experts)' dated 18 September 2025 (joint expert costings report).3 Although not evident in the joint expert costings report, the costings are inclusive of GST and inclusive of a margin where Mr Mithen used a margin of 20% and Mr Jones used a margin of 35%.4 Non expert witnesses 17 Mr Sweetman filed a witness statement dated 23 September 2025 which he confirmed the contents of at the final hearing.5 Mr Sweetman gave sworn evidence about taking possession of the property in October 2022 with the agreement of Mr Glover. Mr Sweetman also gave 3 Exhibit 1 at pages 435 to 442. 4 ts 127 to 128, 21 October 2025. 5 Exhibit 1 at pages 445 to 558. -- 11 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 12 evidence that he and Mrs Sweetman wanted a 'pivot front door' as provided for in the plans but what they got was a 'zero threshold door'. Mr Sweetman testified that the 24 tonnes of concrete poured at the property was of insufficient quality which he then organised to be dug up and re-poured over some five days without any assistance from the builder. Mr Sweetman also gave evidence about the discussions with Mr Glover about the 600 x 600 tiles in bedroom 1's ensuite. Mr Sweetman gave evidence that they wanted the hot water units on the 'dead side' of the house so they could use the space on the other side. Mr Sweetman said the builder and his plumber guaranteed there would not be any issue with hot water throughout the house but when they go to handover stage this was not the case and solutions put forward, including installing a gas instantaneous unit under each hot water unit would be at the owners' cost caused him much frustration. In relation to the builder returning to the property to undertake remedial work, Mr Sweetman gave evidence there was a sustained period where there was a willingness to allow the builder to undertake the remedial works per the email correspondence with Mr Glover but the reality over eight months was different. Finally, Mr Sweetman gave evidence that up to 30 May 2023 access to the property was given to the builder, but from this date, they were 'done' with the builder. 18 Mr Glover filed a witness statement dated 22 September 2025 which he confirmed at the final hearing.6 Mr Glover's background is that of a carpenter for about 15 years and that in 2017 he commenced trading through a private company which was registered in 2017 as a builder of which he is the director. Mr Glover gave sworn evidence that in May 2022 he was supervising works on the property when the southern side of a brick wall was built on the back neighbour's property which when recognised he took steps to have the wall demolished and rebuilt at the builder's cost because he is insistent to have defects rectified. Mr Glover also gave evidence about the ongoing issues with the garage door installation, including when it fell off and hit him while he was working on the door, and that a reasonable person might lose confidence in the work of GDI, the garage door installer. Mr Glover gave evidence that he supervised the concreting works which he quickly accepted was 'subpar' and had to be dug up and re-laid and gave the owners a $20,000 credit for the works as this work was taken out of the builder's scope and put into the owner's scope and therefore the builder received no money for the concreting works. Mr Glover gave evidence that when he agreed for the owners to take possession of the property in October 2022 there 6 Exhibit 1 at pages 938 to 992. -- 12 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 13 were still a lot of 'snagging' items especially downstairs, a list which he had not provided to the owners as that is not required to be provided under the contract. Mr Glover gave evidence that there were plumbing issues from October 2022 which are still issues. Mr Glover accepted in giving evidence that painting defects identified, and part of the snagging list, before the owners moved into the property and had not been resolved by 30 May 2023. Finally, Mr Glover gave evidence that at the request of the owners in early November 2022, there was a push to get the external works complete ready for the Christmas party the owners were hosting, so those works were undertaken at the expense of attending to the defects. Expert witnesses 19 Mr Deshon is employed by Home Integrity Building Consultants Pty Ltd. Mr Deshon is a registered builder (since 2013) and has an Advanced Diploma in Building and Construction management. His trade background is that of a carpenter. Mr Deshon's inspection report of the property is dated 18 June 2024.7 Mr Deshon attended the final hearing and confirmed the contents of his report. Mr Deshon gave affirmed evidence as to whether building work was defective, faulty or unsatisfactory not knowing that the owners had commenced moving into home from October 2022, but accepts that when conducting his inspection, that he was inspecting a dwelling that had been lived in.8 20 Mr Greg Mithen is a registered builder (since 2012) and has more than 30 years working in the construction industry from onsite administration, project management and general management. Mr Mithen has worked both in Australia and internationally and has experience in both the commercial/industrial and residential building sectors. Mr Mithen has experience with preparation of estimates for all levels for residential constructions projects. Mr Mithen prepared a report and costing spreadsheet.9 According to Mr Mithen, he inspected the property on at least two occasions to review Mr Deshon's report with a view to understanding each of the items of complaint.10 Mr Mithen revised his costing spreadsheet following the expert conferral on the basis that items such as painting (complaint items 5 to 34) can be 7 Exhibit 1 at page 81 to 197. 8 ts 138, 21 October 2025. 9 Exhibit 1 at pages 248 to 264. 10 Exhibit 1 at page 250. -- 13 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 14 attended to as one package which leads to a reduced cost.11 Mr Mithen attended the final hearing and gave sworn evidence on costings. 21 Mr Christopher Lee Jones is the director of Estimating Service Australia. Mr Jones was summonsed to give oral evidence by the builder. Mr Jones has 17 years of experience in the construction industry. Mr Jones is involved in training registered builders, suppliers of materials, trade subcontractors and homeowners. Mr Jones' report is dated 11 July 2025. Although not stated in his report, Mr Jones testified that he inspected the property some months before he prepared his report and that the inspection took about 40 minutes.12 Mr Jones attended the final hearing and gave affirmed evidence on costings. 22 Mr Daniel Lewis is a licensed plumbing contractor with 11 years' experience predominantly in residential plumbing. Mr Lewis is a 40% shareholder in No Props Plumbing & Electrical and is employed as the service manager. Mr Lewis prepared a report for No Props Plumbing dated 17 March 2025 which he confirmed at the final hearing.13 Mr Lewis attended the final hearing and gave sworn evidence on the results of his inspection of the plumbing throughout the property including his testing for any possible leak areas and his camera inspection of the sewer lines. 23 Mr Luke Kneebone is employed by Floors by Nature. Mr Kneebone is a flooring specialist and consultant with expertise in timber flooring inspections, project management, product recommendations and issue resolution for existing flooring installations. Mr Kneebone inspected the flooring at the property on 24 February 2025 and prepared his report dated 20 March 2025.14 Mr Kneebone attended the final hearing and confirmed the contents of his report. At the final hearing, Mr Kneebone gave sworn evidence that he inspected the property where he noted cupping of the floorboards, excessive gaps between the floorboards and lipping. Issues 24 The issues for determination are: (a) whether the building work was carried out by the builder at the property, the subject of the complaint items, and if 'yes' whether 11 ts 45, 21 October 2025. 12 ts 139, 21 October 2025. 13 Exhibit 1 at pages 221 to 239. 14 Exhibit 1 at page 245 to 247. -- 14 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 15 that work was not carried out in a proper and proficient manner or is faulty or unsatisfactory? If the building work is not proper and proficient or is faulty or unsatisfactory, what is the reasonable scope of works to remedy the complaint item(s)? (b) whether a BRO can include other costs claimed by the owners for general overheads, supervision and accommodation and living away from home and if so, what amount should be awarded? (c) if building work carried out by the builder at the property, the subject of the complaint items, was not carried out in a proper and proficient manner or is faulty or unsatisfactory, what BRO should the Tribunal make - a 'remedial works' order or a 'monetary' order, and if the later, what monetary amount should be awarded? Consideration Whether building work carried out by the builder is not proper and proficient or is faulty or unsatisfactory? 25 Owners may make a complaint to the Building Commissioner about a 'regulated building service' not being carried out in a proper and proficient manner or being faulty or unsatisfactory under s 5(1) of the BSCRA Act. The term 'regulated building service' is defined in s 3 of the BSCRA Act to include a 'building service' carried out by a registered building service provider. A 'building service' is also defined in s 3 of the BSCRA Act to include 'building work' as that term is defined in s 3 of the Building Act 2011 (WA). There, 'building work' is defined to mean, among other things, the construction, erection, assembly or placement of a building or an incidental structure and the required site work. 26 It is uncontroversial, and we find that building work was carried out at the property. What is challenged by the builder in regard to complaint items 72, 75 and 83 is that as the builder did not carry out the building work. Rather, the builder asserts that as the owners engaged contractors to do the building work, the builder cannot be held responsible for those complaint items. We will deal with this challenge when we consider the complaint items (see below at [433] to [439, [452] to [460] and [472] to [482]). 27 We now turn to consider the complaint items. For convenience, we will group the items of complaint under three headings as follows: -- 15 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 16 • Builder admits liability for items of complaint and costings experts agree on costing - 36 items of complaints; • Builder disputes items of complaint and the costings experts agree on the costing - nine items of complaint; and • Builder disputes items of complaint and the costings experts do not agree on the costing - remaining items of complaint. 28 The costings prepared by the costings experts where they are set out in the following reasons are inclusive of a margin (20%) and GST (10%). Later, in these reasons (see below at [651] we set out in summary our findings and the total sum of the costings for all of the items of complaint for which we make a finding that the work was not carried out in a proper and proficient or is faulty or unsatisfactory. Builder admits liability for items of complaint and costings experts agree on costing 29 For each of the following 36 items of complaint, the builder admits liability for the item of complaint and the costings experts agree the cost to remedy the item. For these items of complaint, we have accepted the scope of works as recommended by Mr Deshon along with the agree costing. The only issue in contention between the parties is the form of the order that the Tribunal should make in respect of the complaint items - a monetary order as urged by the owners, or a remedial works order as submitted by the builder. We deal with this issue after we have considered all of the items of complaint and the parties' submissions as to the form of the orders (see below at [697] to [768]). Complaint item 35 - Scullery - bowed wall between scullery and drop zone 30 The owners complain there is a bowed wall between the scullery and the drop zone where the bow is 9 millimetres over the 975 millimetres wall. According to Mr Deshon as the bow exceeds 3 millimetres over a 2.4 metre wall, it does not comply with the Western Australian Guide to standards and tolerances 2019 (Guide).15 31 The builder admits liability for the complaint item. In completing the Complaint Schedule,16 the builder proposes to remove the skirting board and plaster the area to straighten and paint. 15 Department of Local Government, Industry Regulation and Safety (LGIRS), formerly the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (DMIRS). 16 Exhibit 2. -- 16 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 17 32 It is uncontroversial, and we find there is a bowed wall between the scullery and the drop zone which does not comply with the Guide. We find the work is faulty or unsatisfactory. We accept the scope of works recommended by Mr Deshon as follows:17 (a) remove skirting board; (b) remove bowed plasterboard sheet; (c) pack frame or cripple stud; (d) install new sheet and flush into system; (e) paint to match existing areas and re-attach skirting board; and (f) make good all affected surfaces. 33 The costings experts agree, and we accept that the cost to rectify the complaint is $1,650.18 Complaint item 36 - Cabinetry/benchtops - raw edges exposed 34 The owners complain the cabinetry/benchtops are sealed to the wall and at other abutments exposing the raw edges to moisture and diminishing the aesthetics. Mr Deshon reports that such installation is contrary to Australian Standard (AS)19 AS 4386-2018 Cabinetry in the built in environment - commercial and domestic section 13(e). 35 The builder admits the work is faulty and is to be remedied. In completing the Complaint Schedule the builder proposes to rechalk. 36 It is uncontroversial, and we find the cabinetry/benchtops exposing raw edges do not comply with AS 4386-2018 and is therefore faulty or unsatisfactory and is to be remedied. We accept the scope of works as recommended by Mr Deshon as follows:20 (a) seal junctions to comply with AS 4386-2018 - fill gap between wall and panel with a paintable filler, where cabinets, infill panels, refrigerator panels, worktops and any other finished panels butt to walls; and 17 Exhibit 1 at page 101. 18 All of the costings by the costings experts set out in these reasons for decision include a margin (20%) and GST (10%). 19 Council of Standards Australia. 20 Exhibit 1 at page 102. -- 17 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 18 (b) make good all affected surfaces. 37 The costings experts agree, and we accept that the costing to remedy this complaint item is $1,742.40. Complaint item 38 - Games room - cavity sliding door installation incomplete 38 The owners complain that the cavity sliding door installation is incomplete because the door guide has not been installed which causes the base of the door to scrape on the jamb when opening and closing the door. According to Mr Deshon, failure to complete a door installation is faulty or unsatisfactory building work. 39 The builder admits the door installation is faulty. 40 Mr Deshon recommended the following scope of work:21 (a) install a plastic cavity sliding door guide to the base of the door jambs; and (b) make good all affected areas. 41 It is uncontroversial, and we find the games room cavity sliding door installation is incomplete because the door guide has not been installed and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory work. We accept the recommended scope of works put forward by Mr Deshon. 42 We also accept the costing to remedy this complaint is $222.75 is as agreed by the costings experts. Complaint item 41 - Guest ensuite - sealant not bonded to substrate 43 This item of complaint is dealt with under complaint item 36 (see above at [34] to [37]). Complaint item 51 - Bathroom 1 door - door jambs not adequately protected 44 The owners complain that the bathroom door jambs are made from MDF and have not been adequately protected from moisture damage resulting in swelling. 45 According to Mr Deshon, the use of MDF door jambs in a wet area is contrary to good building practice due to MDF's inherently poor performance in moist conditions. Contrary to the approved building plans, Mr Deshon in his report states that the builder installed a door with 21 Exhibit 1 at page 104. -- 18 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 19 MDF frames. Mr Deshon recommends the scope of remedial work as follows:22 (a) remove MDF jambs and stops; (b) install timber jambs and stops sealed on all sides; and (c) make good all affected surfaces. 46 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder states that it proposes to replace the damaged door stops. 47 It is uncontroversial and we find that the bathroom door jambs made of MDF have not been adequately protected from moisture damage and therefore represents work that is faulty or unsatisfactory. 48 We accept the scope of works recommended by Mr Deshon and the costing as agreed by the costings experts of $1,000. Complaint item 52 - Bathroom 1 - grout voids 49 The owners complain there are voids in the tile grout of bathroom 1's wall tiling over the location of the vanity and towards the ceiling. 50 Mr Deshon opines that such voids in the tile grout is contrary to Guide clause 12.06 which requires there to be no voids in the grout on completion of the works, with the consequence the work is faulty or unsatisfactory. 51 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint and in completing the Complaint Schedule states that its contractor will return to do the re-grouting. 52 Mr Deshon recommended the following scope of work:23 (a) fill voids in grout lines in accordance with AS 3958.1-2007 Ceramic tiles Part 1: Guide to the installation of ceramic tiles; and (b) make good all affected surfaces. 22 Exhibit 1 at page 119. 23 Exhibit 1 at page 121. -- 19 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 20 53 It is uncontroversial and we find that there are voids in the tile grout of bathroom 1's wall tiling which represents work that is faulty or unsatisfactory. 54 We accept the scope of works as recommended by Mr Deshon and the costing as agreed by the costings expert of $222.75. Complaint item 56 - Bedrooms 1, 2, 3 and 4 - pin partially dislodged from hinges 55 The owners complain that the door hinge pins are detaching from the hinge. 56 Mr Deshon opines that the failure of the pins may be due to installation upside down and the pin dropping over time and use but in any event this represents work that is faulty or unsatisfactory. 57 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder proposes for a carpenter to 'flip' the upside-down hinges. 58 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:24 (a) rotate hinges so they are installed correctly and knock pins back into hinge; and (b) make good all affected surfaces. 59 It is uncontroversial and we find that the door hinge pins are detaching from the hinge for each of bedrooms 1, 2, 3 and 4 and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory work. 60 We accept the scope of work as set out by Mr Deshon and the costing as agreed by the costings experts of $710. Complaint item 57 - Laundry cabinet - not sealed at wall at abutments 61 The owners complain that the cabinetry in the laundry has not been sealed to the wall and other abutments and thereby exposing the raw edges of the cabinet material to moisture. 62 We have dealt with this item of complaint above under complaint item 36 (see above at [34] to [37]). 24 Exhibit 1 at page 129. -- 20 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 21 Complaint item 58 - Laundry cabinet doors - blemishes 63 The owners complain that there are blemishes on the laundry cabinet doors at the junction between the laminate face and edge strip, which present as white lines. 64 In his report, Mr Deshon states that he could not determine what the white lines were but opined they could be excess glue residue from the edge strips or raw laminate material where the colour had been removed. Further, Mr Deshon reports that all the doors in the laundry, apart from the full height doors are affected. Because the white lines can be seen from a normal viewing position, Mr Deshon says this is a manufacturing defect and represents faulty or unsatisfactory work as it does not meet the requirements of section 11.06 of the Guide. 65 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:25 (a) if it is established that the white lines are glue residue, clean off with an appropriate cleaning agent; (b) if it is established the white lines are due to the removal of the laminate colouring, remake the cabinet doors; and (c) make good all affected surfaces. 66 The builder admits liability this item of complaint. In completing the Complaints Schedule, the builder states that the cabinet-maker who installed the cabinets agreed to address the issue of complaint. 67 It is uncontroversial and we find that there are blemishes on the laundry cabinet doors which represents faulty or unsatisfactory work. 68 We accept the scope of work as set out by Mr Deshon and the costing agreed by the costings experts of $1,428. Complaint item 59 - Bedroom 1 WC - tiles exhibits grout haze 69 The owners complain the cleaning of the tiles has not been completed as there is grout haze on the east wall tile surface. 70 Mr Deshon opinion is that cleaning of the tiles which leaves a grout haze is contrary to AS 3958.1-2007 section 5.8 and is therefore 25 Exhibit 1 at page 131. -- 21 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 22 represents work that is faulty or unsatisfactory. To remedy this defect, Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:26 (a) clean grout haze from tiled surface to comply with AS 3958.1- 2007. 71 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder states it proposes to have the tiles cleaned. 72 It is uncontroversial and we find that there is grout haze on the east wall tile surface in the bedroom 1 bathroom which represents work that is faulty or unsatisfactory. 73 We accept the scope of work as set out by Mr Deshon and the costing as agreed by the costings experts of $117.48. Complaint item 60 - Bedroom 1 WC - voids in tile grout 74 The owners complain there are voids in the grout of the tiles in the bathroom of bedroom 1. 75 Mr Deshon reports that there are voids in the grout of the bathroom of bedroom 1 on the west wall toward the ceiling which is contrary to the Guide at section 12.06 which requires there to be no voids in the grout on the completion of work and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory work. Mr Deshon recommended the following scope of work:27 (a) fill voids in grout lines in accordance with AS 3958.1-2007; and (b) make good all affected surfaces. 76 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder states it proposes to have the fill in the voids in the tile grout as required. 77 It is uncontroversial and we find that there are voids in the tile grout of the tiles in the bathroom in bedroom 1 which represents faulty or unsatisfactory work. 26 Exhibit 1 at page 133. 27 Exhibit 1 at page 121. -- 22 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 23 78 We accept the scope of work as set out by Mr Deshon and the costing as agreed by the costings experts of $316.80. Complaint item 61 - Bedroom 1 WC - Toilet door does not have lift hinges 79 The owners complain the toilet pan is within 1200 millimetres of the hinge side of the door in the bathroom of bedroom 1 and has not been fitted with lift hinges or sufficient clearance over the door so that the lift off hinges can be used. 80 According to Mr Deshon, the building plan A203 provides the door to be 620 millimetres wide and the dimension between the door and the toilet pan measured at 300 millimetres to be 1120 millimetres which is short of 1200 millimetres provided for in the National Construction Code (NCC)28 Volume 2 Part 3.8.33. Further, according to Mr Deshon, the door has not been fitted with lift off hinges or sufficient clearance over the door so lift off hinges can be used. Such failure to provide a door that complies with the NCC represents work not completed in a proper and proficient manner. 81 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:29 (a) replace existing hinges with lift off type in the same style as existing hinges; (b) cut clearance into the top of the door to accommodate lifting the door off; (c) install deeper hear stop if required; and (d) make good all affected surfaces. 82 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder states that it proposes to change the hinges of the door, at the same time as other doors, including cutting the door to accommodate lifting the door. 83 It is uncontroversial and we find that the door in the bathroom of bedroom was not fitted with lift off hinges or sufficient clearance over the door so that lift hinges can be used, in circumstances where the dimension between the door of 620 millimetres wide and the toilet pan 28 Australian Building Codes Board. 29 Exhibit 1 at page 134. -- 23 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 24 is less than the 1200 millimetres provided for in the NCC, and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory work. 84 We accept the scope of work recommended by Mr Deshon and the costing as agreed by the costings experts of $679.80. Complaint item 64 - Balcony - Omission of movement joints in the tiling system 85 The owners complain that movement joints have not been installed in the tiling system. 86 Mr Deshon reports that movement joints were not installed around posts in the tiling system of the balcony with the result there is cracking developing in the tiles. According to Mr Deshon, this is contrary to AS 3958.1-2007 section 5.4.5.1(a). 87 The builder admits liability for this complaint item. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder proposes for the tiling contractor to rectify the complaint. 88 Mr Deshon recommended the following scope of work:30 (a) remove skirting tiles; (b) remove cracked tiles; (c) make good waterproofing membrane in accordance with AS 4654; (d) install a new floor tile ensuring a movement joint is present at post; and (e) reinstall skirting tiles and finish in accordance with AS 3958.1- 2007. 89 It is uncontroversial and we find that movement joints have not been installed in the tiling system of the balcony with resulting cracking developing in the tiles and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory work. 90 We accept the scope of work as set out by Mr Deshon and the costing as agreed by the costings experts of $750. 30 Exhibit 1 at pages 135 to 136. -- 24 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 25 Complaint item 65 - Balcony - tile joints around the steel column, not correctly installed 91 The owners complain that a flexible sealant has not been applied to the floor to skirting tile joints to accommodate building movement. According to Mr Deshon failure to do this is contrary to AS 3958.1-2007 figure 5.4.5.4. 92 Mr Deshon recommended the following scope of work:31 (a) rake out any grout or detritus in the skirting toile to floor tile joint; (b) install flexible sealant to make joint in accordance with AS 3958.1-2007. 93 The builder admits liability for this complaint item. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder proposes for the tiling contractor to rectify the complaint. 94 It is uncontroversial and we find that a flexible sealant was not applied to the floor to skirting tile joints to accommodate building movement, contrary to AS3958.1-2007, and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory work. 95 We accept the scope of work as set out by Mr Deshon and the costing as agreed by the costings experts of $283.80. Complaint item 67 - Balcony - ceiling board loose 96 The owners complain that a short section of timber lining board has partially separated from the ceiling outside the balcony sliding door. 97 According to Mr Deshon, failure to adequately fix timber linings, resulting in them becoming loose soon after installation represents faulty or unsatisfactory work. 98 The builder admits liability for this complaint item. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder proposes to have the board re-glued and re-fixed. 99 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:32 (a) fix the lining board into its support batten; 31 Exhibit 1 at page 143. 32 Exhibit 1 at page 145. -- 25 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 26 (b) fill any remaining screw or nail holes in the timber; and (c) make good all affected surfaces. 100 The costings experts agree the cost to remedy this complaint item is $223. 101 It is uncontroversial and we find that a short section of the timber lining board has partially separated from the ceiling outside the balcony sliding door, and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory work. 102 We accept the scope of work as set out by Mr Deshon and the costing as agreed by the costings experts of $223. Complaint item 69 - Hot water takes too long to flow through powder room tap fixtures 103 This item of complaint is dealt with under complaint item 109.7 (see below at [601] to [615]). Complaint item 71 - Bedroom 1 - grout haze on tiling - cleaning of tiles not complete 104 The owners complain that cleaning of the tiles has not been completed as there is grout haze on the tiles. 105 Mr Deshon reports that there is grout haze on the tile surface below the vanity in bedroom 1 which is contrary to AS 3958.1-2007 which requires tile to be clean upon completion of work. Mr Deshon's recommends the following scope of work:33 (a) clean grout haze from tiled surface to comply with AS 3958.1- 2007. 106 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder states its cleaner will attend the property to clean the tiles which should be done in one and one half hours. 107 It is uncontroversial and we find that there is grout haze on the tile surface below the vanity in bedroom 1 which should have been cleaned upon completion of the work. The consequence is that the work was not completed in a proper and proficient manner. 33 Exhibit 1 at page 150. -- 26 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 27 108 We accept the scope of works recommended by Mr Deshon and accept the costing as agreed by the costings experts of $236.28. Complaint item 73 - Bedroom 1 ensuite - grout missing in shower floor 109 The owners complain there is grout missing from the floor tile installation against the channel drain. According to Mr Deshon, such grout missing is contrary to the Guide section 12.06 which provides that grout is defective if it becomes loose within 24 months of handover. Mr Deshon says this represents work not completed in a proper and proficient manner. 110 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:34 (a) remove any loose grout; (b) apply new grout that matches the existing grout in accordance with AS 3958.1-2007; and (c) make good all affected surfaces. 111 The builder admits liability for this complaint item. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder states that it proposes for C & C Premier Tiling to rectify this item of complaint. 112 It is uncontroversial and we find that there is grout missing from the floor tile installation against the channel drain in the ensuite of bedroom 1. The consequence is that the work was not completed in a proper and proficient manner. 113 We accept the scope of works recommended by Mr Deshon and accept the costing as agreed by the costings experts of $284.80. Complaint item 78 - Bedroom 1 - door latch 114 The owners complain that the door does not latch due to the leaves being out of parallel. According to Mr Deshon, this is contrary to the Guide section 9.07 which provides that the installation of doors is defective if within 12 months they do not operate as intended by the manufacturer and is therefore representative of work not being carried out in a proper and proficient manner. 115 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:35 34 Exhibit 1 at page 152. 35 Exhibit 1 at page 159. -- 27 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 28 (a) modify the 2 x door leaves that make up the bedroom entry so they are parallel; (b) ensure the latch and striker plate align and the door operates correctly; and (c) make good all affected finishes. 116 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder proposes for the carpenter to adjust the latch. 117 It is uncontroversial and we find that the door does not latch due to the leaves being out of parallel and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory work. 118 We accept the scope of work as set out by Mr Deshon and the costing as agreed by the costings experts of $316.80. Complaint item 79 - Ceiling - insulation 119 The owners complain the insulation has not been properly installed as there are gaps and voids and the insulation has been laid loosely over the framing and not a snug fit which reduces thermal performance. Mr Deshon states the failure to provide ceiling insulation in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions adversely affects the thermal performance of the building and is therefore representative of work not being completed in a proper and proficient manner. 120 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:36 (a) install insulation in accordance with manufacturer's instructions so that there are no gaps and all insulation is a snug fit between framing members. 121 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder proposes to reinstate the insulation near access point based on the quote from Top Teng Wall & Ceilings dated 15 April 2025. 122 It is uncontroversial and we find that the insulation has not been properly installed as there are gaps and voids and the insulation has been 36 Exhibit 1 at page 160. -- 28 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 29 laid loosely over the framing and not a snug fit which reduces thermal performance and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory work. 123 We accept the scope of work as set out by Mr Deshon and the costing as agreed by the costings experts of $1,393.92. Complaint item 80 - Balcony - skirting tiles outside bedroom window 124 The owners complain that grout has been used to fill the tile to wall joints at the top of the balcony skirting tile on the return wall outside the bedroom window which is inconsistent with other areas where silicon has been used. 125 According to Mr Deshon, the Guide section 12.06 provides that joints are defective if they are not, as far as is practicable, of consistent width and any inconsistency can be seen from a normal viewing position and is therefore representative of work that is faulty or unsatisfactory. 126 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:37 (a) rake out the grout from the top of the subject area of skirting tiles; (b) apply silicone to match the finish of adjacent areas; and (c) make good all affected surfaces. 127 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder proposes for C & C Premier Tiling to complete the remedial work. 128 It is uncontroversial and we find that grout has been used to fill the tile to wall joints at the top of the balcony skirting tile on the return wall outside the bedroom window which is inconsistent with other areas where silicon has been used and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory work. 129 We accept the scope of work as set out by Mr Deshon and the costing as agreed by the costings experts of $371. 37 Exhibit 1 at page 162. -- 29 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 30 Complaint item 81 - Balcony - Efflorescence 130 The owners complain that there is efflorescence developing in the tiles on the southern end of the balcony which indicates poor drainage of the balcony. 131 Mr Deshon reports that the Guide section 14.08 provides that efflorescence that appears in mortar joints of the balcony tiles is defective and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory building work. 132 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:38 (a) seal all junctions and joints in the vicinity of efflorescence to mitigate moisture ingress below the tiles; (b) clean efflorescence from the grout tiles; and (c) monitor during following rain events and if efflorescence continues to develop, revert to builder to undertake further remediation. 133 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder states that it proposes for C & C Premier Tiling to complete the remedial work. 134 It is uncontroversial and we find that there is efflorescence developing in the tiles on the southern end of the balcony and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory work. 135 We accept the scope of work as set out by Mr Deshon and the costing as agreed by the costings experts of $416. Complaint item 82 - Cabana decking - poorly cut 136 The owners complain the carpentry work to the Cabana39 has not been done in a tradesman like manner as the cuts around the western post margins are inconsistent, screws in the decking are overtight cracking the board and there is a step in the decking board end junction at the poor cover box. 38 Exhibit 1 at page 164. 39 The parties have used the word 'Kabana' rather than 'Cabana'. We understand the parties to mean they are referring to a 'Cabana' being a shelter used at the outdoor pool for shade or shelter rather than a 'Kabana' which is a long, thin, smoked Polish sausage. -- 30 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 31 137 Mr Deshon reports that a failure to construct the deck in a workman like manner resulting in a poor finish represents work not completed in a proper and proficient manner. 138 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:40 (a) remove the decking board with the oversized cut; (b) install new board with a cut-out that provides a consistent margin around the post; (c) replace decking boards that have been cracked by over tightening screws; (d) modify subframe to mitigate the step in boards at the pool cover box; and (e) make good all affected surfaces. 139 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint. 140 It is uncontroversial and we find that the carpentry work to the Cabana has not been done in a tradesman like manner as the cuts around the western post margins are inconsistent, screws in the decking are overtight cracking the board and there is a step in the decking board end junction at the poor cover box and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory work. 141 We accept the scope of work as set out by Mr Deshon and the costing as agreed by the costings experts of $1,254. Complaint item 85 - Cabana - ceiling coating damage 142 The owners complain that the Cabana panel roofing was damaged during installation as the roofing appears to not have had the plastic film removed prior to installation causing the film to become wedged between the ceiling and support post. The builder then cut the plastic and at the same time scored the power coasted surface of the sheet resulting in a permanent blemish. 143 Mr Deshon reports the Guide section 13.03 provides that paintwork is defective where it has blemishes and exhibits irregularities on the 40 Exhibit 1 at page 165. -- 31 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 32 surface which can be seen from a normal viewing position and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory building work. 144 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:41 (a) remove all remaining protective coating from the roof panels; (b) apply a suitable protective coating over the scratches; (c) install a trim to the ceiling, beam junction which will cover over and conceal the scratching, while maintaining the aesthetics of the Cabana; and (d) make good all affected surfaces. 145 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder states that it proposes that Thorton Roofing Pty Ltd complete the remedial work as set out in the quote dated 14 April 2025. 146 It is uncontroversial and we find that the panel roofing of the Cabana was damaged during installation and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory work. 147 We accept the scope of work as set out by Mr Deshon and the costing as agreed by the costings experts of $884. Complaint item 86 - Colorbond fence near pool - construction residue 148 The owners complain there is construction residue on the fence which was not cleaned off before handover. 149 Mr Deshon reports that the Guide section 19.09 provides that property owners are entitled to expect that the building site and works are clean and tidy on completion. The unclean fence represents work that is faulty or unsatisfactory. 150 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:42 (a) clean building residue off the fence panels; (b) if fence panels have been stained, replace affected panels; and 41 Exhibit 1 at page 169. 42 Exhibit 1 at page 171. -- 32 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 33 (c) make good all affected surfaces. 151 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder states that it proposes to replace the affected panels. 152 It is uncontroversial and we find that there is construction residue on the fence and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory building work. 153 We accept the scope of work as set out by Mr Deshon. We also accept the costing agreed by the costings experts to remedy this item of complaint at $910.80. Complaint item 88 - Pool toilet block building - no down pipe fitted 154 The owners complain there is no downpipe connected to dispose of and convey stormwater to an appropriate outfall. 155 According to Mr Deshon, surface water is collected and concentrated by the roof and gutter, but without having a downpipe to dispose of the water and convey it to an appropriate outfall, the result is that the water is likely to adversely affect the fence, retaining wall, and cause nuisance to the neighbouring property and their planter box. This, Mr Deshon opines is contrary to NCC Volume 2 Performance requirement 2.2.1 which requires surface water resulting from a storm having an average recurrence interval of 20 years and which is collected or concentrated by a building or sitework, to be disposed of in a way that avoids the likelihood of damage or nuisance to any other property. 156 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:43 (a) install a downpipe to the building in accordance with HB 39-2015 and AS 3500.3:2018 Plumbing and drainage Part 2: Sanitary plumbing and drainage; (b) connect downpipe into a suitable stormwater system in accordance with AS 3500.3:2018; and (c) make good all affected surfaces. 157 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder proposes to install 43 Exhibit 1 at page 173. -- 33 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 34 downpipes into the soak well under the lawn approximately 3 metre pipework to the main line. 158 It is uncontroversial and we find that there is no downpipe connected to the dispose of and convey stormwater to an appropriate outfall and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory building work. 159 We accept the scope of work as set out by Mr Deshon and the costing as agreed by the costings experts of $1,320. Complaint item 90 - Cracking at fascia/wall junction on the south elevation of the alfresco 160 The owners' complaint there is cracking between the wall finish and the fascia as evidenced in the Home Integrity PCI report dated 26 April 2023.44 161 According to Mr Deshon the Guide section 10.17 provides that cracking between dissimilar material is defective if it exists at handover or exceeds 1mm in the first 12 months of completion. The failure to provide a crack free finish in accordance with the Guide represents faulty or unsatisfactory building work. 162 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:45 (a) seal the gap between the fascia and the wall with a flexible, UV resistant, and paintable sealant; (b) paint the sealant to match the existing wall surface; and (c) make good all affected surfaces. 163 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder states that this is likely be wear and tear given the owners have lived at the property for two years, however, proposes to seal the crack and have the paint touched up. 164 It is uncontroversial and we find that there is cracking between the wall finish and the fascia and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory building work. 44 Exhibit 1 at page 639. 45 Exhibit 1 at page 176. -- 34 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 35 165 We accept the scope of work as set out by Mr Deshon. We also accept the costing agreed by the costings experts to remedy this item of complaint at $472.56. Complaint item 92 - Pool toilet block building - inappropriate barge capping fixings 166 The owners complain the barge capping is not properly fixed. 167 Mr Deshon reports that zinc steel nails have been used to fix the flashing, and the fixings have not been installed at 500 millimetre centres contrary to SA HB 39-2015 - installation code for metal roof and wall cladding.46 Further, Mr Deshon reports that zinc nails are not compatible with Colorbond roofing as stated in SA HB 39:2015 table 2.3(b) and therefore the installation is faulty or unsatisfactory. 168 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:47 (a) remove nails from flashing; (b) install suitable fixing to the barge capping in accordance with SA HB 39-2015 section 8.2; and (c) make good all affected surfaces. 169 The builder accepts liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder refers to a draft quote from Thornton Roofing dated 14 April 2025 which provides a costing of $70 to rectify this complaint item48 and states that it proposes to remedy the complaint item by replacing with 'appreciate' fixings. 170 It is uncontroversial and we find that the barge capping is not properly fixed and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory building work. 171 We accept the scope of work as set out by Mr Deshon and the costing agreed by the costings experts of $198. 46 Standards Australia. 47 Exhibit 1 at page 176. 48 Exhibit 1 at page 780. -- 35 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 36 Complaint item 103 - Roof defects 172 The owners complain there is water ingress to the eave on the north- east corner of the roof and other defects in the roof with flashings and barge capping. 173 Mr Deshon reports pressure flashings have not been fixed at 100 millimetres, parapet flashings have not been fixed at 500 millimetres centres, no flashing is installed on the vent penetration over master ensuite and barge capping on the west front corner not properly fixed. In support, Mr Deshon relies on NCC Volume 2 performance requirement which provides that the roof and external walls (including openings around windows and doors) must prevent the penetrations of water that could cause unhealthy or dangerous conditions, or loss of amenity for occupants, SA HB 39-2015 section 8.2 which requires roof flashings and capping to be fastened to withstand wind pressures and thermal movements, SA HB 39-2015 section 8.4 which requires the fixing centre of pressure flashings to be no more than 100 mm spacings, SA HB 39-2015 which requires parapet capping to be fixed to parapet walls at intervals not exceeding 500 millimetres with masonry anchors and cleats that permit longitudinal expansion and contraction. Further a minimum fall of 3 degrees is to be provided across the width of the flashing to divert water back onto the roof coverings so as to prevent the water from dripping down the fascia causing unsightly staining and AS 1562.1-2018 Design and installation of sheet roof and wall cladding Part 1: Metal section 4.7 which requires flashings to be installed around any projections through the roof or wall cladding so that all pans drain. 174 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:49 (a) repair roof leak in the north-east corner of the roof and paint facia to match existing; (b) install additional fixings to pressure flashings in order to comply with SA HB 39-2015 section 8.4; (c) install additional fixings to parapet flashings in order to comply with SA HB 39-2015 section 8.7; (d) install a rubber collar flashing to the roof penetration over the ensuite; and 49 Exhibit 1 at page 184. -- 36 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 37 (e) install fixings to the west front corner of the house in order to comply with SA HB 39-2015 section 8.2. 175 The builder accepts liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder refers to a quote from Top Rung Roofing (undated) for a costing of $600 and proposes for Top Rung Roofing to rectify this item of complaint.50 176 It is uncontroversial and we find that there is water ingress to the eave on the north-east corner of the roof and other defects in the roof with flashings and barge capping and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory building work. 177 We accept the scope of work as set out by Mr Deshon and the costing agreed by the costings experts of $1,452. Complaint item 104 - Bedroom 2 - Windowsill does not have fall away from building to facilitate drainage 178 The owners complain that the windowsill in bedroom two does not have a fall away from the building to facilitate drainage. 179 Mr Deshon reports that the sill is not sloped outwards to direct water away from the building which is contrary to the Guide section 3.19 and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory building work. 180 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:51 (a) build up sills to achieve an outward sloping surface with wall coating or other suitable coating; (b) apply sealant to any gaps and junctions; (c) paint the coating to match existing walls; and (d) make good all affected surfaces. 181 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder refers to a schedule of rates from CO Plastering Pty Ltd and states that it proposes to add texture to create a fall.52 50 Exhibit 1 at pages 789 to 793. 51 Exhibit 1 at page 188. 52 Exhibit 1 at page 786. -- 37 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 38 182 It is uncontroversial and we find that the windowsill in bedroom two does not have a fall away from the building to facilitate drainage and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory work. 183 We accept the scope of work as set out by Mr Deshon and the costing agreed by the costings experts of $607.20. Complaint item 106 - Garage door bowed 184 The owners complain the garage door is bowed and does not finish flush with the cladding in a closed position. 185 This item of complaint is dealt with under complaint item 43 below (see [342] to [356]). Complaint item 108 - Elevation windowsills front and side - do not have gradient away from the building 186 The owners complain that sills on the ground, front elevation and on the right-hand side elevation are not sloped outward to direct water away from the building. 187 Mr Deshon reports that the Guide section 3.19 provides that brick sills are defective if they are not laid with a consistent slope to each elevation and adequate slope to provide drainage away from the opening. 188 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:53 (a) build up sills to achieve an outward sloping surface with wall coating, render, or other suitable coating; (b) apply sealant to any gaps and junctions; (c) paint the coating to match existing walls; and (d) make good all affected surfaces. 189 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder proposes to rectify this item of complaint by building up the texture and paint when rectifying complaint item 104. 190 It is uncontroversial and we find that the sills on the ground, front elevation and on the right-hand side elevation are not sloped outward to 53 Exhibit 1 at page 192. -- 38 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 39 direct water away from the building and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory work. 191 We accept the scope of work as set out by Mr Deshon. We also accept the costing agreed by the costings experts to remedy this item of complaint at $607.20. Complaint item 109.13a - Upstairs bathroom shower 192 The owners complain that in the upstairs bathroom shower sealant is required around the channel grate outlet. 193 The owners refer to Smart Plumbing No probs report. However, that report provides:54 The sealant issue is not related to plumbing. This is to be addressed by others. 194 The report prepared by Crest Plumbing and Gas reports is that sealant is required around the channel grate outlet.55 195 In any event, the builder accepts liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder proposes to reseal and refers to a quote for C&C Premier Tiling for $223 (which excludes a margin and GST). 196 It is uncontroversial and we find that sealant is required around the channel grate outlet in the upstairs bathroom shower and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory building work. 197 We accept the scope of works is to clean out existing sealant and apply sealant around the channel grate outlet. We accept the costing agreed by the costings experts at $363.56 Complaint item 109.15 - Master en-suite shower 198 The owners complain that in the master en-suite shower sealant is required around the channel grate. 54 Exhibit 1 at page 226. 55 Exhibit 1 at page 219. 56 ts 112, 23 October 2025. We note there were no submissions made to the contrary in the respondent's closing submissions filed on 27 January 2026. -- 39 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 40 199 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder proposes to replace silicon as instructed along the channel grate. 200 It is uncontroversial and we find that sealant is required around the channel grate outlet in the master en-suite shower and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory building work. 201 We accept the scope of works is to clean out the existing sealant and apply sealant around the channel grate. We accept the costing agreed by the costings experts at $363.57 Complaint item 109.16 - External floor waste pits 202 The owners complain the pits are not draining away and appear to be filled with concrete. 203 Mr Deshon reports there is a blockage in the plumbing due to construction residue that presents as wall coating being washed into it. Such an unclean drain, reports Mr Deshon, is contrary to the Guide section 19.09 which provides that owners are entitled to expect that the building site and works are clean and tidy on completion and therefore represents work that is faulty or unsatisfactory. 204 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:58 (a) engage a suitably qualified plumbing contractor to clean out the drainage system; (b) using a borescope or drain camera, ensure concealed areas of the pipework are not blocked; (c) undertake cleaning or pipe replacement as required to ensure the line is clear of any debris; and (d) make good all affected surfaces. 205 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder proposes to redrill the floor waste pits to ensure drainage. 57 ts 112, 23 October 2025. We note there were no submissions made to the contrary in the respondent's closing submissions filed on 27 January 2026. 58 Exhibit 1 at page 193. -- 40 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 41 206 It is uncontroversial and we find that the pits are not draining away due to construction residue in the plumbing and therefore represents work that is faulty or unsatisfactory. 207 We accept the scope of works. We also accept the costing agreed by the costings experts at $640. Complaint item 111 - Main bedroom - door bolt not installed properly 208 The owners complain that the locking bolt hardware is not installed properly. 209 This item of complaint is dealt with under complaint item 78 (see above at [111] to [118]). Builder Disputes items of complaint and the costings experts agree on costing 210 For each of the following nine items of complaint the builder does not admit liability for the item of complaint, but the costings experts agree on the cost to remedy the item of complaint. 211 In this category the issue in contention between the parties is whether the building work was not carried out in proper and proficient or is faulty or unsatisfactory, and if so, what is the scope of the remedial work and what is the form of the order that the Tribunal should make in respect of the complaint items - a monetary order as urged by the owners, or a works order as submitted by the builder. We will return to deal with the last issue after we have considered all the complaints and the parties' submissions as to the form of the orders (see below at [697] to [769]). Complaint item 39 - Stair wall - no horizontal control joint between floors causing cracking 212 The owners complain that there is no horizontal control joint installed at the junction between the first and second storey in the stairwell wall which is causing cracking. 213 Mr Deshon reports that the CSR Gyprock The Red Book 02 Residential Installation Guide (The Red Book) requires a horizontal control joint to be installed at the junction between the first and second storey in the stairwell wall. As this has not been done, Mr Deshon said there is cracking at the junction of the plasterboard wall, the second step tread down from the top.59 It is Mr Deshon's view that if there is no 59 Exhibit 1 at page 106. -- 41 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 42 control joint, the same movement that caused the crack in the plasterboard, will cause it to crack again.60 214 The builder denies liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder states that the owners did not want to see the expansion joint as it looks unsightly and they agreed verbally to leave out the expansion joint. 215 Mr Sweetman testified that he did not recall any discussion with Mr Glover about leaving out the expansion joint and says that there is no document to support the builder's assertion. 216 Mr Deshon opined that it would be risky for a builder to deviate away from the standards and codes and that if any deviation is agreed and the owners agree to take on the risk, then it should be documented.61 217 Mr Deshon recommended the following scope of work:62 (a) install a control joint between ground and the first floor in accordance with The Red Book installation guide; (b) repair cracking, and paint to match existing walls; and (c) make good all affected surfaces. 218 Mr Jones' offered a different scope of works at the final hearing. Mr Jones opined that there is cracking which is isolated. Mr Jones said there is no cracking at the horizontal movement joint and there is minor cracking at the internal corner of the plasterboard which is common because it is a weak spot and if the stair is isolated where it comes out of the plasterboard with a simple cut around that effectively creates a control joint which will stop the cracking. 219 There is no evidence, such as a written and signed variation before us concerning the horizontal control joint. Therefore, we find that there is no horizontal control joint between the first and second storey which is contrary to the requirements of The Red Book. Further, we find there is cracking on the plasterboard wall which has resulted from the lack of a control joint. Such cracking represents faulty or unsatisfactory work. We prefer the scope of works recommended by Mr Deshon to remedy 60 ts 56, 22 October 2025. 61 ts 55, 22 October 2025. 62 Exhibit 1 at page 105. -- 42 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 43 this item of complaint as it is detailed and references the remedial work to The Red Book. 220 The costings experts agree, and we accept that the costing for this complaint item is $3,498. Complaint item 53 - Bathroom 1 floor - inadequate gradient for surface water to flow towards floor waste and to prevent water ponding on tiled surface 221 The owners complain that the tiled floor of bathroom 1 does not have a gradient to allow surface water to flow towards a floor waste and to prevent water ponding. 222 The builder denies liability for this item of complaint stating the owners insisted on having the 600 x 600 tiles even though they were informed that the tiles would need to be laid flat and that there was no shower screen on the design, so none was installed. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder states that a shower screen can be supplied and installed for $1,000. 223 In his witness statement, Mr Glover 'partially' accepts liability for this item of complaint but claims that a warning was given to the owners that the tiles would have to be laid flat and that he should have declined the owners' instructions to lay the tiles flat. 224 Mr Deshon in his report refers to the National Construction Code/Building Code of Australia August 2019 (NCC) Volume 2, Part 3.8.1.2 which requires wet areas to comply with AS 3740-2010 Waterproofing of domestic wet areas. In his opinion, by reference to Part 3.15.5, Mr Deshon states that as the shower is a walk-through shower, or in other words, an unenclosed shower, the floor is to be waterproofed out to water stop angle, that is, a minimum of 1500 millimetres from the shower connection on the wall. However, Mr Deshon opined that if the shower is enclosed, then the fall is only required in the shower area which is the quickest fix.63 According to Mr Deshon, the shower floor waste may be used, provided that the entire floor out to 1500 millimetres from the shower connection on the wall is graded towards the floor waste. Further, Mr Deshon said that he observed a metal angle at the threshold of the main door to the wet area which may be a water stop angle, however, the water stop angle does not correctly close off the sliding door cavity facilitating water ingress to concealed areas which is contrary to good trade practice. 63 ts 164, 22 October 2025. -- 43 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 44 225 Mr Deshon explained that with 600 x 600 tiles, you can put a traverse cut in them as the cut will create the fall required. However, the cut will not look good. 226 Mr Deshon recommended the following scope of work, which he conceded is a compromise position, because the owners did not contract for an enclosed shower but to minimise disruption, an enclosed shower is recommended as follows:64 (a) install a shower screen door to the opening to convert the shower into an enclosed shower to achieve compliance with AS 3740- 2010; (b) remove tiles at the cavity sliding doors; (c) install a water stop angle across the cavity and waterproof into the perimeter membrane, in accordance with AS 3740-2010; (d) replace affecting tiling, and finish with grout and sealant as required in accordance with AS 3958.1-2007 Ceramic tiles Part 1: Guide to the installation of ceramic tiles; and (e) make good all surfaces. 227 Mr Jones proposed an alternative method of remedial works at the final hearing which includes the supply and installation of a new frameless shower screen. 228 Mr Mithen costed the scope of work prepared by Mr Deshon at $6,252.84. Mr Jones agreed to this costing. 229 It is not necessary for us to determine or make a finding about what the owners and the builder agreed about the tiles. This is because, even if the owners did insist on having 600 x 600 tiles, the builder is required to have the tiles laid in accordance with the NCC and AS 3740-2010. It is uncontroversial and we find that the tiles were not laid in accordance with AS 3740-2010 which represents faulty or unsatisfactory work. 230 We accept the evidence of Mr Deshon, that the required fall to comply with AS 3740-2010 could be achieved by a traverse cut in the tiles. Further, we accept the scope of works recommended by Mr Deshon 64 Exhibit 1 at page 122. -- 44 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 45 to make the shower an enclosed shower to comply with AS 3740-2010 and to minimise the disruption to the owners. 231 We accept the scope of works as recommended by Mr Deson and the costing as agreed by the costings experts of $6,252.84. Complaint item 54 - Bathroom 1 - heated towel rails loose 232 The owners complain that the heated towel rails in bathroom 1 is not firmly fixed to the wall and rattle when force is applied. 233 Mr Deshon opined that when he inspected the heated towel rails in bathroom 1 on 18 June 2024, he found the rails not to be firmly fixed to the wall and rattle when he applied force and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory work. We note there is no reference to loose towel rails in the Handover inspection report prepared by Mr Rick Gibbs of Home Integrity Building Consultants Pty Ltd on or about 26 April 2023 (handover report).65 234 The builder denies this item of complaint stating that this issue was not evident at handover and it is likely to have resulted from general wear and tear due to the owners' occupation of the property for the past two years. 235 Mr Deshon testified that all the rails are consistently loose and that at handover the rails may not have been grabbed to see if they were loose.66 Mr Deshon accepts that if the handrails worked themselves loose through wear and tear then, in his view, the rails would not be defective, however if the rails were installed incorrectly and not tightened, then that is defective work.67 In this case, Mr Deshon said all the towel rails are consistently loose and all appear to have a rattle in them when force is applied and therefore, in his view, this is not consistent with wear and tear.68 236 Mr Deshon recommended the following scope of work:69 (a) tighten fixings connecting the towel rail to the wall; 65 Exhibit 1 at pages 599 to 648. 66 ts 177, 22 October 2025. 67 Ibid. 68 Ibid. 69 Exhibit 1 at page 126. -- 45 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 46 (b) if fixing points are damaged or threaded, replace damaged component so that the towel rail can be firmly connected to the wall; and (c) make good all affected surfaces. 237 The costings experts agreed on a cost of $100 for this complaint item. 238 We accept the evidence of Mr Deshon that he found the heated towel rails in bathroom 1 to be loose when he inspected them on 18 June 2024. That is well after the owners and their children occupied the property from October 2022. However, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the performance of the heated towels is as a result of the builder's work. Because of this, we decline to make any order for this item of complaint. Complaint item 55 - Roof pressure flashing - not fixed at 100-millimetre centres 239 The owners complain the pressure flashing have not been fixed at 100 millimetre centres. 240 In his report, Mr Deshon states this is contrary to SA HB 39-2015 Installation code for metal roof and wall cladding, section 8.4(c)(v) and the Guide at 8.07 and therefore the work was not completed in a proper and proficient manner. 241 The builder denies this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule the builder states this is a cover flashing and that the actual flashing is fixed behind the master wall cladding and does not form part of the waterproofing. 242 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:70 (a) install additional fixing to achieve compliance with SA HB 39- 2015 (fixing centres at not more than 100 millimetre spacings); and (b) make good all affected surfaces. 243 At hearing, Mr Deshon conceded that the master wall is a decorative finish and not serving any purpose apart from being a decorative finish.71 70 Exhibit 1 at page 128. 71 ts 179 to 180, 22 October 2025. -- 46 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 47 However, Mr Deshon's view is that it is still a pressure flashing. Later, Mr Deshon conceded that '[i]f it's not needed for waterproofing, that's good'.72 244 The costings experts agreed to a costing of $450 for this complaint item. 245 We find on the evidence of the builder that the flashing is decorative only and on the concession of Mr Deshon a flashing that is decorative is not needed for waterproofing. On this basis we find the work is not defective or unsatisfactory. Consequently, we decline to make any order for this item of complaint. Complaint item 62 - Bedroom 1 ensuite - towel rail loosely fitted to wall 246 The owners complain the heated towel rails are not firmly fitted to the wall and rattle when force is applied. 247 Mr Deshon opined that the rails were not installed properly - the grub screw was not fully tightened.73 However, Mr Deshon accepted that the towel rail could become loose, but he thought it strange all the towel rails simultaneously became loose.74 We note there is no reference to loose towel rails in the handover report (where the property was inspected on 26 April 2023). 248 Mr Deshon recommended the following scope of work:75 (a) tighten fixings connecting the towel rail to the wall; (b) if fixing points are damaged or threaded, replace damaged component so that the towel rail can be firmly connected to the wall; and (c) make good all affected surfaces. 249 The builder does not admit liability for this item of complaint because it was not raised at handover and contends that it is likely to be from general wear and tear during to the owners' occupancy of the property for the past two years. 72 ts 335, 22 October 2025. 73 ts 182, 22 October 2025. 74 ts 183, 22 October 2025. 75 Exhibit 1 at page 137. -- 47 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 48 250 The costings expert agree the cost to remedy this complaint item is $554. 251 In our view, as for complaint item 54, we accept the evidence of Mr Deshan that he found on the towel rail in bedroom 1 ensuite to be loose and rattled when force is applied when he inspected them on 18 June 2024. That is well after the owners and their children occupied the property from October 2022. However, as for complaint item 54, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the performance of the towel rail in bedroom 1 ensuite is as a result of the builder's work. 252 Consequently, we decline to make any order for this item of complaint. Complaint item 63 - Bedroom 1 ensuite - inadequate gradient for surface water to flow towards floor waste and to prevent water ponding on tiled surface 253 The owners complain that the main floor of the ensuite to bedroom 1 does not have a gradient to allow surface water to flow towards a floor waste and prevent water ponding on the tiled surface. 254 The builder denies liability for this item of complaint with the same comments as provided for complaint item 53 (see above at [221] to [231]). 255 Mr Deshon's comments in regards to this complaint as the same as for complaint item 53, other than the ensuite has a water stop angle. Mr Deshon recommended the following remedial work to make the shower an enclosed shower in order to comply with AS 3740-2010:76 (a) install a shower screen door to the opening to convert the shower into an enclosed shower to achieve compliance with AS 3740- 2010; and (b) make good all affected surfaces. 256 The costings experts compromised on their costings and provided for the installation of an enclosed shower. They agreed a costing of $4,900.50 for this item of complaint. 257 We make the same findings as for complaint item 53 (see above at [221] to [231]). 76 Exhibit 1 at page 138. -- 48 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 49 258 We accept the scope of works recommended by Mr Deshon to make the shower an enclosed shower to comply with AS 3740-2010 and to minimise the disruption to the owners. Further, we accept the costing as agreed by the costings experts of $4,900.50. Complaint item 66 - Balcony - chipped tile 259 The owners complain there is a chipped tile on the balcony outside the bedroom window which they say they were unaware of, and with the infrequent use of the balcony is likely to have existed at handover. 260 Mr Deshon opined that tiles are defective if they are cracked, pitted, chipped, scratched or loose at handover. Mr Deshon gave evidence that there is one tile on the front first floor balcony that looks like something reasonably heavy, such as a hammer during construction, has been dropped on the tile and caused a substantial chip.77 However, when questioned, Mr Deshon conceded that it is possible that the owners may have dropped something heavy on the tile during their occupancy before he inspected the property.78 261 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:79 (a) remove damaged tile; (b) make good substrate and waterproofing membrane; (c) install a new tile to match existing; and (d) finish tiling with grout in accordance with AS 3958.1-2007. 262 The builder does not admit liability for this complaint item. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder states this issue was not present at the handover and is likely to be from general wear and tear as the owners have been in occupation of the property for more than two years. 263 The costings experts agree the cost to remedy this complaint item is $754. 264 On the evidence before the Tribunal, we are not persuaded that the tile was chipped at handover. While we note that the owners say that they infrequently use the balcony, we accept the evidence of Mr Deshon 77 ts 187 to 188, 22 October 2025. 78 ts 189, 22 October 2025. 79 Exhibit 1 at page 144. -- 49 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 50 that it is possible that the owners may have dropped something heavy on the tile during their occupancy before he (Mr Deshon) inspected the property in June 2024. We accept the evidence of Mr Glover that a chip as significant as shown in the photograph80 would not have escaped his notice when inspecting the property before handover. 265 Consequently, we decline to make any order in respect of this complaint item. Complaint item 89 - Pool toilet block building - hole in the wall 266 The owners complain that in the pool toilet there is a hole in the wall. 267 Mr Deshon reports that the hole in the wall is from the door handle due to the omission of a doorstop. According to Mr Deshon, failing to provide a door stop with resulting damage to the wall represents work that is faulty or unsatisfactory. 268 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:81 (a) install a door stop; (b) repair the hole in the wall; (c) paint to match the existing wall; and (d) make good all affected surfaces. 269 The builder does not admit liability for this item of complaint. In the Complaint Schedule, the builder states the owners denied access to install the door stop as the owners took occupation of the property prior to completion. 270 The costings experts agree the costing of $650 for this item of complaint. 271 In closing written submissions, the builder submits that in circumstances where the owners have denied the builder access to the property with the result the work is incomplete as opposed to defective, that there can be no basis for the Tribunal to make a building remedy order under s 36(1) of the BSCRA Act. 80 Ibid. 81 Exhibit 1 at page 175. -- 50 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 51 272 It is uncontroversial that the owners moved into the property in October 2022 and that by 30 May 2023 they had 'had enough' of the builder and from that date they conceded they denied access for the builder to carry out remedial works. Mr Deshon completed his report on 18 June 2024. 273 Unlike complaint item 83 (see below at [472] to [482]), where the gutter was located on the Cabana deck but not installed, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the door stop was located in or about the pool toilet block building and not installed. On that basis, we cannot find, as submits the builder, that the work is work was in progress. 274 We find the hole the wall in the pool toilet block building is from the door handle due to the omission of a doorstop. Failing to provide a door stop with resulting damage to the wall represents faulty or unsatisfactory work. 275 We accept the scope of works as set out by Mr Deshon and accept the costing agreed by the costings experts of $650. Complaint item 112 - Roof tie down system 276 The owners complain the roof tie downs have not been completed in accordance with the approved engineer drawings. 277 Mr Deshon reports that a PGI strap that is 30 x 0.8 has not been installed at 1200 millimetre centres around the perimeter contrary to the Roof Hold Down Detail and that the internal walls used to support rafters have not been tied down as required in the Typical Timber Tie Down Detail. Mr Deshon opines that as the internal walls are made from a framing material (rather than rigid beams) they should be tied down in the same manner as shown in the Roof Hold Down Detail using PGI strap at 1200 millimetre centres. Further, Mr Deshon reports that the rafters have been tied to their internal support walls but there is no continuity of tie downs from the top plate of the wall downward to the footings. Mr Deshon states the triple grips connecting the rafters to the top plates have not been installed in accordance with Pryda's manufacturer installation instructions. In conclusion, Mr Deshon reports that the failure to provide roof tie downs in accordance with the approved engineer drawings and contrary to the manufacturer's installation instructions represents work not completed in a proper and proficient manner. -- 51 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 52 278 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:82 (a) install PGI strapping to the top plate to stud connections at a minimum of 1200 millimetres centres; (b) install Pryda Triple grips on the rafter to top plate connections in accordance with manufacturers installation instruction; (c) ensure the roof tie-down and bracing is completed in accordance with the engineer's requirements; and (d) design engineer to inspect completed works and provide a written advice that the tie-down and bracing is constructed in accordance with the design. 279 The builder does not admit liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder states that the roof tie downs are in accordance with the engineer requirements but possibly a couple of the tie downs may not be compliant as provided in the quote dated 15 April 2026 from Peny Pty Ltd Construction. 280 In explaining his costing for this item of complaint, Mr Jones stated that 'an engineer needs to come up and either sign off and/or give instruction to rectify'83 as a first step in the scope of works. 281 The costings experts agree the costing for this item of complaint at $2,653.20. 282 It is uncontroversial and we find that not all the roof tie downs have been completed in accordance with the approved engineer drawings and therefore represents work that has not been completed in a proper and proficient manner. 283 We accept the scope of works as prepared by Mr Deshon but with the addition of Mr Jones' requirement to have the engineer attend the property to give instruction as to what is needed to be rectified. We also accept the costing as agreed by the costings experts of $2,653.20. Builder disputes items of complaint and the costings experts do not agree on costing 284 We turn now to work through the remaining items of complaint. For these items of complaint, the builder does not admit liability and the 82 Exhibit 1 at pages 195 to 196. 83 ts 593 to 594, 1 December 2025. -- 52 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 53 costings experts do not agree the costing to remedy the item and in some cases the scope of works is challenged. Similar to the previous categories of items of complaint, the parties do not agree on the form of the order that the Tribunal should make. We will return to deal with this issue after we have considered all the complaints and the parties' submissions as to the form of the orders (see below at [697] to [769]). Complaint item 1 - kitchen - fault in power circuit 285 The owners complain the power keeps tripping out when more than one appliance is used. 286 Mr Deshon said he is not an electrician and accepts that he did open the meter box and press the RCD test button. The reason for him not doing the test is because, according to Mr Deshon, it is not a good test to check if the power circuit can use all the power. Mr Deshon testified that it was when three items were used together at the same time that they draw quite a lot of electricity resulting in the tripping out, which leads him to the conclusion that there is a problem with the circuit and it's drawing too much power, causing the RCD to trip out. Mr Deshon did not test the kitchen appliances; however, he inspected the kitchen where he observed the dishwasher was running at the time.84 287 In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder admits this is faulty work but challenges the amount claimed by the owners saying it is excessive. The builder relies on an undated letter from Mr Dom Foster of Foster Electrical Pty Ltd where Mr Foster states that the kitchen appliance cabinet is tripping due to overload and without being able to test the circuitry for load, he assumes the load of the circuit is too high for the cabling and circuit protection. Mr Foster recommends to 'pick up' from the general circuit immediately to the left of the appliance cabinet which would separate the appliance cabinet with any other part of the kitchen. The cost provided by Mr Foster is $308 without any breakdown. 288 Mr Mithen explained the scope of works comprises two parts. First, there is an investigatory part where an election needs to go in and find out why the RCD is tripping. Four hours at $170 per hour is allowed by Mr Mithen for investigation by an electrician as set out in the quote from Crown Electrical Services. The second part of the work it to do the remedial work which may require a new circuit. Eight hours (or one day) 84 ts 147 to 149, 21 October 2025. -- 53 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 54 is allowed by Mr Mithen for an electrician to undertake the remedial work, some materials and to make good totalling $2,000.85 289 Mr Jones in his report allowed three hours for an electrician at $100 per hour totalling $300 and an upgrade to the RCD to meet draw from appliances totalling $250. This amounts to $816.75. 290 Mr Mithen and Mr Jones do not agree on the costing for this item. In their joint expert report, they state a scope of works needs to be determined where an electrician is to find the fault and reason for overloading. 291 It is uncontroversial and we find that the power is overloading in the kitchen power circuit and therefore represents work that is faulty or unsatisfactory. However, the reason for the overloading is not known. It may be that an appliance(s) is causing the power to trip out or it may be that the electrical wiring is causing the power to trip out. 292 There is no clear evidence before the Tribunal and the experts in attendance at the final hearing (none of whom is an electrician) all stated that an electrician is to be engaged to find the fault and the reason for the overloading. Costing to do this varies from $300 to $680. 293 While the builder was critical of the owners for failing to establish an appropriate scope of work to rectify the defect, the builder conceded, as reflected in the Complaint Schedule by reference to Foster Electrical Pty Ltd, that there is a fault in power circuit and provided a costing of $308. 294 We do not accept the full costing provided by Mr Mithen as it provides for a new circuit, which may not be required. 295 Based on the evidence before the Tribunal, we would allow a costing of $308 (plus margin and GST) for the engagement of a licensed electrician at $170 per hour for four hours to find the fault and the reason for the overloading at a total cost of $897.60. Complaint item 2 - Bedroom 1, level 1 - sanitary drainage system does not function correctly 296 This item of complaint is dealt with below under complaint item 109.11 (see below at [622] to [634]). 85 ts 141 to 142, 21 October 2025. -- 54 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 55 Complaint item 3 - Guest bedroom - shower leaking onto toilet wall 297 The owners complain that the wall inside the toilet which is opposite the shower has an elevated moisture content. 298 Mr Deshon using a Protimeter SurveyMaster penetrating moisture metre said he found a reading of 21.5% at the floor/wall junction which is elevated when compared to a control measurement taken at the windowsill height which was 15.5%. Mr Deshon's evidence is that this indicates a failure to meet Performance Requirement P2.4.1 of the NCC Volume 2 which requires that water be prevented from penetrating behind fittings and lining or into concealed places of sanitary facilities, bathrooms, laundries, and the like. 299 Mr Deshon explained when he did his testing, he put the moisture metre on the tiles as grout can hold water and push water around.86 Mr Deshon said that the reading is not a surface reading but penetrates through the tile.87 Further, Mr Deshon said it did not matter what the medium is, for example whether it is a stub wall or a brick wall, because he checked the control measurement (or datum) which should be the dry area of the wall in the room. The problem according to Mr Deshon is that it is wetter down at the wall/floor junction as compared to the datum which indicates that if there is a waterproof membrane, then there is something wrong with the waterproof membrane - either in the wall or the shower floor.88 It was not necessary to do destructive testing, according to Mr Deshon, as the moisture metre clearly reflects moisture content.89 300 In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder denies liability for this item of complaint stating that its independent contractor evaluated this complaint at handover and found no concerning moisture levels. The independent contractor recommends to epoxy grout around the shower grate as a precaution which was booked but on the day this work was to be done, contact with the owners could not be made which the builder took to be a refusal to grant access to the property by the owners. 301 We note details of the independent contractor referred to by the builder and the contractor's report is not before the Tribunal. 86 ts 160 to 161, 21 October 2025. 87 ts 163, 21 October 2025. 88 ts 167, 21 October 2025. 89 ts 158, 21 October 2025. -- 55 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 56 302 Mr Glover in his witness statement stated that he attended an inspection of the property with Mr Johathan Legros of Shower Regrouting on or about 15 May 2023. Mr Glover states he saw Mr Legros take measurements with a digital moisture metre of the same wall pictured in the handover report and that Mr Legros said to him that the moisture readings were lower than in the handover report and were not concerning to Mr Legros. Mr Legros offered to apply epoxy grout around the shower grate only as a precaution with a costing of $245.90 303 Mr Deshon testified that if remedial work is not done then the metal doorframe of the toilet door will rust out due to the moisture and that will require the door to be pulled out and because the door is built into the brickwork it will crack everything. Mr Deshon said that there is no way of fixing the defect and the door needs to be replaced. This is because, according to Mr Deshon, if you surface treat the rust, there will still be a chemical reaction where it touches the brickwork.91 304 The scope of works recommended by Mr Deshon is:92 (a) remove shower screen, channel drain, and tiles from the shower area; (b) make good the substrate ready to accept waterproofing membrane and allow area to dry; (c) install waterproofing in accordance with AS 3740-2010 and the NCC; (d) refit channel drain and re-tile in accordance with AS 3958.1-2007 including all finishing work and sealants; and (e) re-fit shower screen and make good any affected surfaces. 305 Mr Mithen costed the above scope of work at $11,932.80 comprised of 64 hours for a tiler at $95 per hour, $2,000 for materials (tiles, screed, waterproof membrane, grout, glues), four hours for a painter to touch-up afterwards and four hours for plumbing, removal of taps and removal of sanitary fixtures in the shower. 306 For the above scope of works recommended by Mr Deshon, Mr Jones agreed with the costing at $11,932.80. 90 Exhibit 1 at page 781 and pages 939 to 942. 91 ts 152, 21 October 2025. 92 Exhibit 1 at page 90. -- 56 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 57 307 In our view, while it is Mr Legros' view that the moisture readings were lower than that stated in the handover report and were not concerning to him, there is no evidence before the Tribunal as to the moisture readings taken by Mr Legros. Mr Legros was not called to give evince, and because of that, we are not able to consider Mr Legros' position any further here. 308 We accept the evidence of Mr Deshon that due to a reading of 21.5% at the floor/wall junction with his Protimeter SurveyMaster penetrating moisture metre as compared to the control measurement taken at the windowsill height which was 15.5% the waterproofing membrane is faulty or unsatisfactory. This is because the reading indicates a failure to meet Performance Requirement P2.4.1 of the NCC Volume 2 which requires that water be prevented from penetrating behind fittings and lining or into concealed places of sanitary facilities, bathrooms, laundries, and the like. 309 We accept the scope of works as set out by Mr Deshon and the agreed costing by the costings experts of $11,932.80. Complaint items 5 to 34 - Painting - various 310 The owners allege various painting defects throughout the property. 311 Mr Deshon explained that while the defects are minor in nature such as paint runs, paint sags, wrinkling, dust, bare or stubbed unpainted areas, colour variations, surface cracks, irregular and course brush marks, sanding marks and blistering, the concern is that there are many painting defects - a total of 83 defects - they need to be fixed to ensure the painting paint work complies with AS 2311-2017 Guide to painting of buildings to achieve compliance with the requirements of the Guide section 13.03. 312 The builder admits that the painting is defective but in completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder states that some of the painting defects are likely to be from general wear and tear due to occupancy of the property for the past two years. The builder's position is that the amount claimed by the owners is excessive and that only $3,850 is required to rectify the defects based on quote 580 dated 9 April 2025 by Paul Toyne Painting and Decorating.93 313 The costings experts disagree on the costing for the painting works. 93 Exhibit 1 at page 712. -- 57 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 58 314 Mr Mithen costed the painting at $100 per hour and allowed an additional 10% for materials for a total of 68 hours, for one painter for eight days, noting there are multiple small complaints giving a total costing of $10,865. 315 In contrast, Mr Jones costing to undertake the many painting defects, which the parties agree are minor, is for one painter for three days plus materials and consumables to total $3,846.16.94 316 It is uncontroversial and we find the painting is defective, which is minor in nature but there are many minor defects. Such defective painting represents faulty or unsatisfactory work. 317 We accept the scope of works as recommended by Mr Deshon, that is to undertake rectification of the paint work in accordance with AS 2311-2017 to achieve compliance with the requirements of the Guide section 13.03. 318 In our view, we find the costing provided by Mr Mithen as excessive and not proportionate to remedy the minor painting defects. The costing of $3,846.16 provided by Mr Jones is, on balance, reasonable and proportionate to remedy the many minor painting defects. This is supported by the quote provided Paul Toyne Painting and Decorating. We accept Mr Jones' costing of $3,846.16 for this item of complaint. Complaint item 37 - Games room - sliding door cavity wall is bowed 319 The owners complain the cavity sliding door cavity wall at the opening is bowed. 320 Mr Deshon reports that the wall is defective if it deviates from the plane (bow) in excess of the maximum of 3 millimetres over 2.4 metres for flatness of walls allowed in the Guide section 10.02 with the consequence the work is faulty or unsatisfactory. 321 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint but rejects the following scope of work proposed by Mr Deshon:95 (a) remove wall linings; (b) straighten wall frames of the cavity; 94 Exhibit 1 at page 850. 95 Exhibit 1 at page 103. -- 58 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 59 (c) replace linings, flush in, and paint to match existing walls; and (d) make good all affected surfaces and ensure the door operates correctly. 322 In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder states the cost for rectifying this defect is $930 by reference to a quote from Top Teng Walls & Ceilings dated 15 April 2025 and quote 580 dated 9 April 2025 from Paul Toyne Painting and Decorating. However, neither quote sets out a scope of work or a breakdown of costings. 323 Mr Mithen's costing for the above scope of work is $5,537. This is for one day for a carpenter to dismantle, take skirtings off, cripple studs then to rebuild as is, re-shoot it, reline it, stop it and three coats of paint and make good. This requires six hours for a plasterer and six hours for a painter. 324 Mr Jones' costing is for a different scope of work of $1,793.88. The scope of works is as follows:96 (a) remove door, frame and linings; (b) pack frame or cripple stud; (c) supply new plasterboard; (d) install new sheet and flush into existing; (e) paint to match existing areas and re-attach skirting board; (f) packing materials, paint and consumables; (g) re-install existing door, hardware and frame; (h) timber allowance for stud frame; and (i) supply and install 40 x 40 steel posts at the front. 325 It is uncontroversial and we find the cavity sliding door cavity wall at the opening is bowed and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory work. 326 While we acknowledge that Mr Jones put forward a different scope of works, on balance, we prefer the scope of works as recommended by 96 Exhibit 1 at page 857 and ts 52, 22 October 2025. -- 59 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 60 Mr Deshon and therefore it follows, we accept the costing provided by Mr Mithen for this complaint item of $5,537. Complaint item 40 - Guest bedroom - sliding door fitted with incorrect hardware 327 The owners complain the cavity sliding door has been fitted with silver colour hardware rather than black which is inconsistent with the hardware fitted to other cavity sliding doors. 328 Mr Deshon in his report states that Mr Sweetman informed him that the builder installed the hardware as a temporary measure while sourcing the correct hardware, however, never returned to change the hardware. Because of this, Mr Deshon opined that there was a failure to complete the door installation using the correct hardware which represents work that is faulty or unsatisfactory. 329 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work to remedy this item of complaint:97 (a) remove incorrect hardware; (b) install the correct hardware type so that it is consistent with other door furniture in the house; and (c) make good all affected surfaces. 330 In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder denies liability for this item of complaint stating the owners were informed of the colour of the hardware prior to installation and that they agreed with the colour. 331 The costings experts agree the costing for this complaint is $650. 332 While the photographs in Mr Deshon's report clearly show silver colour hardware and black hardware, neither Mr Sweetman nor Mr Glover made any statement in their respective witness statement about the door hardware. Further, there is nothing in the handover inspection report of 26 April 202398 about the hardware. The owners were in attendance at the handover. Because of this, we are not persuaded that the cavity sliding door was fitted with incorrect hardware and therefore we decline to make any order for this item of complaint. 97 Exhibit 1 at page 107. 98 Exhibit 1 at pages 599 to 648. -- 60 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 61 Complaint item 42 - Guest ensuite toilet door - does not have lift off hinges 333 The owners complain that the guest ensuite toilet door has not been fitted with lift off hinges. According to Mr Deshon, the door is to be installed in accordance with NCC Volume 2 Part 3.8.3.3 which requires the toilet pan to be within 1200 millimetres of the hinge side of the door and the door to be fitted with lift off hinges. 334 Mr Deshon opined that the toilet pan is 1055 millimetres within the hinge side of the door and is therefore represents work that is faulty or unsatisfactory. 335 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:99 (a) replace existing hinges with lift off type in the same style as existing hinges; and (b) make good all affected surfaces. 336 The builder admits the work is defective. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder proposes that a carpenter replace the three hinges and complete the works while attending to other doors and noted this would be half of one hour's work equating to $80 as set out in a quote dated 15 April 2025 by Penny Pty Ltd Construction. 337 The costings experts disagree on the costing for this item of complaint. 338 Mr Mithen explained his costing of $792 covered a carpenter for three hours to go to the property, set up, remove the door, the hinges, repaint the exposed edge, re-install the door, lift off the hinges and re- hang the door. Of the three hours, two hours would be allocated for the painter. Mr Mithen emphasised there is extra time, extra effort and extra protection required when doing remedial work in a finished house. 339 In contrast, Mr Jones' costing is $103.95 for one half hour for a carpenter to remove eight screws and put some new hinges on the door. 340 It is uncontroversial, and we find that the guest ensuite toilet door has not been fitted with lift off hinges contrary to the NCC and is therefore faulty or unsatisfactory work. 341 We agree with the scope of works recommended by Mr Deson which is limited to replacing the existing hinges with lift off type in the 99 Exhibit 1 at page 109. -- 61 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 62 same style as existing hinges and making good all affected surfaces. In our view, while we acknowledge there may be extra time, effort and protection required when undertaking the remedial work, we are not persuaded by the costing provided by Mr Mithen and find it to be excessive and not proportionate for this item of complaint. Consequently, we accept the costing of $103.95 provided by Mr Jones for this item of complaint. Complaint item 43 - Garage door - not operating properly 342 The owners complain the garage door intermittently does not operate correctly whereby it seizes part way through operation. 343 It is Mr Deshon's opinion that the garage door is defective due to the builder not providing a garage door assembly capable of operating under normal conditions as intended by the manufacturer within 12 months of completion. This is contrary to the Guide section 9.07. Mr Deshon explained that he tested the operation of the garage door by pressing the remote and found the door stops part of the way up.100 344 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder suggests the garage door may still be under warranty and in any event, proposes for the original supplier, Garagedoor Industries Pty Ltd (GDI), to install upgraded springs and a new motor at a cost of $2,851. 345 Mr Mithen explained that 89's The Garage Door Specialists inspected the door and said there is nothing wrong with the motor.101 Mr Mithen stated that in costing this complaint item he telephoned the manufacture of the door who gave him a verbal quotation of $3,500 for the arm and $1,000 to fit it (excluding GST and margin).102 346 The owners did not call the person who gave the verbal quote to give evidence to Mr Mithen and therefore was not available to answer questions with the consequence that we attach very little weight to the verbal quote. 347 According to an email of 12 April 2025103 from Mr Mike O'Sullivan of GDI to Mr Glover when the garage door was installed it was stated that there is: 100 ts 123, 22 October 2025. 101 ts 124, 22 October 2025. 102 ts 127, 22 October 2025. 103 Exhibit 1 at page 773. -- 62 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 63 … a problem as it was 5mm to high making door catch on it sometimes, mainly when heat expansion occurs[.] 348 Nothing is stated in the joint expert report that the experts contacted GDI. Nothing is stated in either of Mr Jones' nor Mr Mithen's report that the garage door is under warranty or that GDI agrees to rectify the defect. Rather, the email from Mr O'Sullivan sets out what it would cost to install upgraded springs and a new motor. 349 Mr Jones in his report refers to the report from the owners' expert, 89's The Garage Door Specialist which opined:104 Overall the installation of the Tilt a Door is within specification … In my opinion addition tension is required to ensure door has neutral balance when operated in manual mode. 350 Nothing is stated by Mr Greg McKinley of 89's The Garage Door Specialist nor is there any statement in the GDI email that confirms that the garage door is under warranty. 351 Neither Mr McKinley nor Mr O'Sullivan were called to give evidence. 352 The following was provided in the joint expert report:105 Door under warranty GDI have agreed to rectify the garage door issue. Builder to follow up with GDI for warranty purposes. 353 We find the joint costings experts' statement that the garage door is under warranty and that GDI have agreed to rectify is unsupported. 354 Mr Jones in his report allows three hours for this work at $100 per hour or a total of $445.50. Mr Jones explained this was a minimal amount because the 89's Garage Door Specialists report does not set out a scope of works to remedy the defect. 355 It is uncontroversial, and we find that the garage door intermittently does not operate correctly and is therefore represents work that is faulty or unsatisfactory. 356 In our view, while GDI states in its email of 12 April 2025 that a new motor may be installed, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the motor is faulty. Consequently, we prefer the scope of works as recommended by 89's The Garage Door Specialist, that is additional 104 Exhibit 1 at pages 242 to 243. 105 Exhibit 1 at page 439. -- 63 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 64 tension is required to ensure the door has neutral balance when operated in a manual mode. We would also include in the scope of work the requirement to make good all affected surfaces. We find the costing provided by Mr Jones of $445.50 as reasonable and proportionate for this item of complaint. Complaint item 44 - Entry door - water ingress 357 The owners complain there is water ingress through the entry door onto the internal flooring during storm events with resulting moisture damage to the skirting boards. 358 Mr Deshon reports that the internal linings around the door show moisture damage to the skirting boards and this is contrary to the Performance Requirements P2.2.2 of the NCC Volume 2. Consequently, in Mr Deshon's opinion, the work is faulty or unsatisfactory. Mr Deshon testified that the door is flat - where the concrete level is the same inside as it is outside and it looks like storm water is coming through underneath the door jamb. 359 Mr Deshon said the waterproofing standard, IS 4654, where you would normally have a minimum 40 millimetre step down, that is the external pavement is lower than the internal slab, which the plans provide for, as shown in Exhibit 6 drawing number 405. However, to have a flush threshold, as shown in Exhibit 7, according to Mr Deshon a strip drain should be installed in front of the door to catch the storm water.106 An alternative, suggested by Mr Deshon is to put a water stop angle in the back of the door to create a barrier to block storm water from going in under the door.107 360 Mr Deshon testified that skirting board is expanding and contracting and moving and that causes movement damage but the skirting boarding on both sides of the door is expanding and contracting as it gets wet.108 361 When challenged as to whether the builder is required to comply with the NCC when the owners poured the concrete, Mr Deshon was clear - it was the responsibility of the builder to stop water ingress into the building by installing a mechanism such as a strip drain or a stop angle behind the door frame.109 Further, Mr Deshon stated that it is not the owners' responsibility to undertake the performance solution, such as 106 ts 131 to 132, 22 October 2025. 107 ts 134, 22 October 2025. 108 ts 139 to 140, 22 October 2025. 109 ts 141, 22 October 2025. -- 64 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 65 install a strip drain, because the owners, in this case, are not the registered builder.110 We respectfully do not agree with Mr Deshon's comment where the owners are, in this case, experienced concrete contractors and they carried out the remedial concreting works at the property. In our view the owners would be expected to understand the requirements of the NCC including relevant standards applicable to concrete works. 362 Mr Deshon reiterated in giving oral evidence that water ingress into the house through the entry door is a construction defect as there should have been a mechanism to stop storm water entering the house.111 This is regardless of whether the slab poured by the builder is removed and a new slab is put in the same place by the owners, the mechanism should have been there during the initial construction before the door went in - for example, a strip drain or stop angle.112 363 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:113 (a) ensure door seals are in place and operating correctly; (b) ensure there is suitable drainage provisions (a strip drain) for the door threshold; (c) ensure gaps between the door frame/wall, and the threshold/floor are properly sealed; (d) hose test door to ensure no water ingress occurs; and (e) make good all affected surfaces. 364 The costings experts in their joint expert costings report agreed the cost of the remedial works to be $15,000. Neither expert was asked to explain this costing at the final hearing. 365 Mr Mithen's original costing was $10,620114 but in giving evidence at the final hearing stated that he revised the costing downwards by $3,000115 to $7,620 as he allowed for the front door to be removed and replaced which is not part of Mr Deshon's scope of work. 366 Mr Jones did not cost Mr Deshon's recommended scope of work but rather opined that the scope of works is limited to removing the existing 110 ts 142, 22 October 2025. 111 ts 135, 22 October 2025. 112 Ibid. 113 Exhibit 1 at page 111. 114 Exhibit 2. 115 ts 137, and 147 - 148, 22 October 2025. -- 65 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 66 door seal, supply and install a new door seal, drop or strike seal, and allowance for screws and consumables costing a total of $348.98. 367 The builder does not accept liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder states that there is a design issue as the owners requested a 'zero-threshold' (slab level) door which will not stop all water ingress. The builder references the email dated 14 April 2025 from Mr Ray Loftus of Nu-Look Windows to Mr Glover which states in part:116 The front entry door at the above job was specified with a zero threshold to create a flush look. Any hinged door with this type of threshold with full exposure to west with no protection from the westerly weather has a zero water rating and will leak. This point was strongly pointed out before manufacture however it was insisted that Nu-Look Windows should install it. With the obvious clearances that are required for a hinged door to function it will leak during rain driven high wind. 368 According to Mr Glover, the owners want a 'zero threshold' door meaning that there was to be no threshold (or step) in respect of the doorway.117 369 In contrast, Mr Sweetman in giving oral evidence was clear that they wanted the door as per the plans they had - and that was a pivot door. Mr Sweetman re-iterated that from day one they wanted a pivot door, and whatever was needed for that to happen, whether it was zero threshold or otherwise, they wanted a pivot door. Mr Sweetman stated they did not get a pivot door. 118 370 The builder valiantly sought to make this complaint item about the pouring of the concrete as referenced by Mr Glover in his witness statement and questions put to Mr Sweetman. The following reflects the approach taken by the builder. 371 Mr Glover, in his witness statement, states that while initially the builder had poured the concrete, it was 'ripped up' and Mr Sweetman engaged another contractor to pour the concrete and that neither he (Mr Glover) nor the builder was involved in the engagement of an 116 Exhibit 1 at page 775 to 776. 117 Exhibit 1 at page 945. 118 ts 65 to 66, 21 October 2025. -- 66 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 67 alternative concreting contactor nor in providing directions or supervision of the contractor. Further, Mr Glover states in his witness statement that the contractor engaged by the owners failed to lay the concrete to incorporate at least a 70-millimetre step down.119 Mr Sweetman accepts that he engaged and supervised the concrete to be 'ripped up' and to be repoured in answering questions from the builder at the final hearing, as follows:120 So you would have to agree with me that you took on the burden of engaging an alternative contractor, supervising the removal, all of that, wouldn't you? --- I had to put it together. Skytree showed a reluctance to do it, and we were already on a timeframe that was being blown out because of poor workmanship and having to rip up … concrete. And you did voluntarily, didn't you? --- Yes You agree that you did not have to lend a hand, as you state at [para] 51 of your witness statement? Do you agree?--- I was on site for the entire amount of removal, to try and limit the damage and contain costs. You didn't have to lend this hand, did you? --- No. I didn't have to, but I wasn't confident in an outcome that Skytree would have generated[.] 372 Mr Sweetman gave evidence that he did not follow any plans when engaging his concrete contractor to pour the concrete, rather he just followed where the builder's concrete contractor poured the concrete.121 373 This complaint is limited to the issue of water ingress through the entry door. The Complaint Schedule clearly states this. It is uncontroversial and we find that there is water ingress through the entry door causing damage to the skirting boards. The drawings before the Tribunal are inconsistent - one reflects a step down and the other having a flush threshold. It is not necessary for us to find who instigated the change. This is because, even where the owners' contractor poured the concrete, in our view, it is the builder's responsibility to ensure storm water does not enter the building. In this case, this could have been achieved by installing a stop angle behind the door frame or the installation of a strip drain. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the owners refused to allow the builder to install a strip drain or a stop angle. Consequently, we find the work is faulty or unsatisfactory. 119 Exhibit 1 at page 947. 120 ts 84, 21 October 2025. 121 ts 95, 21 October 2025. -- 67 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 68 374 While we accept the scope of works as recommended by Mr Deshon, we do not accept the costing of $15,000 as agreed by the costings experts. This is because, on Mr Mithen's evidence at the final hearing, he stated that it was excessive. Nor do we accept Mr Jones' costing as set out in his report of $348.98 based on his scope of works, which in our view is very limited. Rather, we find the adjusted costing of $7,620 as provided by Mr Mithen at the final hearing to be the reasonable and proportionate costing to remedy this complaint item. Complaint item 45 - Entry door handle - does not open from the outside 375 The owners complain the entry door handle does not operate as expected because it does not open from the outside and will only operate from the internal side. 376 Mr Deshon testified that the wrong door furniture has been used as the door is too wide for the door furniture installed which is causing it not to open from the outside. This is because, according to Mr Deshon, there is a square piece, kind of like a pin that fits between the two ends of the door handle and it is only good for a door that is between 35 millimetre and 45 millimetre wide and not the door installed which is 50 millimetre wide. Mr Deshon says the entry door handle is different from the door drawn on the approved plan - which is a solid core timber door 35 millimetre thick with a battened external face. The installed door is an aluminium framed, glazed door 50 millimetre wide. Mr Deshon opines such failure to provide a suitable door in accordance with the approved plans and the Guide section 11.07 represents work that is faulty or unsatisfactory. 377 Mr Deshon explained that the door furniture can be replaced with a 50 millimetre snib or larger, however, the manufacturer, Gainsborough, will not cover it under warranty.122 378 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:123 (a) replace the entry door furniture with an appropriate type suitable for the door leaf, and of a style which the owners are satisfied with; and (b) make good all affected finishes. 122 ts 152, 22 October 2025. 123 Exhibit 1 at page 112. -- 68 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 69 379 The builder denies liability for this item of complaint on the basis that on inspection on 10 April 2025, the door was operating perfectly fine. 380 We accept the evidence of Mr Deshon and find the door furniture is faulty or unsatisfactory as it is the incorrect entry door hand for the installed door which is 50 millimetres wide and therefore represents work that is faulty or unsatisfactory. 381 We agree with the scope of works as recommended by Mr Deshon and accept the agreed costing by the costings experts of $1,925. Complaint item 46 - Stairs - adequate control joints not provided 382 The owners complain that the control joints are inadequate to isolate the gyprock lining from the stairs which results in movement induced cracking. 383 The builder denies liability for this item of complaint. However, in completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder states that it is willing to rectify minor cracks and skim coat the surface cracks with settlement. The builder referred to a quote from Top Teng dated 15 April 2025, without any itemisation, and which states the cost would be $1,500. 384 Mr Deshon explained:124 This is very similar to the other gyp-rock, the other plasterboard cracking we had at the stairs. It's where the plasterboard is restrained by the stairs, so when any movement occurs, it cracks the plasterboard. … [Y]ou need to isolate the plasterboard from any abutting surface or structural element. So there needs to be a gap between the plasterboard and the stairs, so the stairs can move freely without affecting the plasterboard. That hadn't been done, and it's resulting in cracking at the stairs. So for the same reason, control joints need to be incorporated to isolate the plasterboard from that abutting element on the stairs. So there needs to be a little gap there. So that the stairs can move without damaging the gyprock, the plasterboard. And the issue with skim coating and it is that that's quite a thin brittle coating and the movement will just re-crack it. So until the movement joints there, that cracking will just occur a couple of weeks after you fix it each time[.] 124 ts 307, 22 October 2025. -- 69 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 70 385 When challenged as to why he did not undertake an invasive inspection, Mr Deshon replied:125 All that [invasive testing] would tell me is whether it's restrained at the rod or that's restrained at the tread. Either way, that's wrong. … I can see it is restrained. It [has] cracked the plasterboard. 386 Mr Deshon concludes that the plasterboard wall lining at the stairs has not been completed in accordance with The Red Book, in that adequate control joints have not been provided to isolate the gyprock lining from the stairs resulting in movement induced cracking to the wall linings. This represents, according to Mr Deshon, work that is faulty or unsatisfactory. 387 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:126 (a) instal control joints around the stair treads and fill with suitable flexible, paintable sealant in accordance with manufacturer's instructions and AS 2589; (b) repair cracking to the linings; (c) paint and finish to match existing walls; and (d) make good all affected surfaces. 388 Mr Mithen in costing this item of complaint at $3,300 allowed for 16 hours as there are 18 stairs and a landing allowing one hour per tread to 'go around, cut the gap, do some tie-up work and caulk it to give the expansion joint and then some time for painting to touch up around each stair a couple of times'.127 389 In Mr Jones' view only one-half hour is required to cut in an expansion joint in to the plasterboard wall, flush paint and make good surfaces for a costing of $185.63. Both Mr Deshon and Mr Jones disagree with putting caulking back because that is what causes the cracking. Rather, in Mr Jones' view a clear joint is required. 390 Mr Mithen stated that if the Tribunal made a finding that complaint items 47 to 50 were made out (see below at [393] to [410]), the work for 125 ts 311, 22 October 2025. 126 Exhibit 1 at page 113. 127 ts 309, 22 October 2025. -- 70 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 71 this complaint item would be undertaken with those complaint items and therefore a separate costing is not required. 391 We accept the evidence of Mr Deshon and find there is cracking to the plasterboard which represents works that is faulty or unsatisfactory. 392 We do not accept Mr Jones' costing of $185.62 as it is too simplistic by only allowing one half hour to do the remedial work. We also do not accept Mr Mithen's costing as it is excessive in the number of hours required to undertake the remedial work and caulking is not part of the scope of works recommended by Mr Deshon. However, we accept Mr Mithen's view that the remedial work for this item of complaint is to be included with complaint items 47 to 50 (see below at [393] to [410]). Consequently, no costing of this item of complaint is required here. Complaint items 47 to 50 - Timber tongue and groove flooring cupping, lippage, excessive gap and peaking 393 The owners complain that the timber flooring including on stair treads exhibits significant cupping which has diminished the aesthetics of the area. 394 Mr Deshon explained that cupping is a defect which occurs in timber flooring when moisture changes in the floor causing expansion pressure and the edges of the board to raise higher than the centre of the board. In Mr Deshon's opinion, the cupping observed at the property is consistent throughout the top floor including the stairs as a result of improper installation practices, whether it is the non-acclimatising of the boards to the in-service conditions prior to laying, or by laying the boards onto a damp substrate. In addition, Mr Deshon opined that there are large gaps between floorboards of up to 2.25 millimetres which is in excess of the maximum 2 millimetres allowed by the Guide section 15.03. Further, Mr Deshon said that the isolated joints in the floorboards show lippage of up to 1 millimetre which is in excess of the maximum lippage of 0.5 millimetres set out in the Guide section 15.02. Finally, according to Mr Deshon, the line of flooring to the glass balustrading is peaking or, in other words, the substate is not level causing the finished floor surface to be out of level by 10 millimetres over 1,000 millimetres which exceeds the maximum of 4 millimetres over 2,000 millimetres set out in the Guide section 15.08. 395 In giving evidence, Ms Deshon testified that the cupping is not from mopping the floor, but rather is consistent in all areas of the floor which leads him to be of the view that the whole substrate is wet, or the -- 71 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 72 environment or the moisture in the environment is coming into the boards.128 In regards to lippage, Mr Deshon said that lippage in excess of 0.5 millimetres was isolated to one instance129 and that there were lots of gaps in the floor but only one that exceeded 2 millimetres.130 396 Mr Kneebone agrees with Mr Deshon's opinion having inspected the property in January 2025. 397 In giving evidence, Mr Kneebone explained that with the Super Floor product (not concrete) the costing to do the remedial work will be more because removing the Super Floor is more difficult than removing concrete. Mr Kneebone is of the view that all the flooring needs to be removed and replaced for a costing of $62,091.96 (plus margin plus GST).131 398 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder states it engaged an inspector from the Australian Timber Flooring Association (AFTA) on 17 April 2025 who recommended the whole floor be replaced as the concern with patching is there will be colour difference. Based on a statement from Jaydi-Lee Kimber of BJ's Timber Flooring dated 17 April 2025, the builder says it will cost $43,065.132 399 Mr Deshon recommended the following scope of work:133 (a) where gaps between flooring exceed 2 millimetre, remove the boards either side of the gap and install new boards with even spacing less than 2 millimetre and in accordance with ATFA recommendations; (b) where the floor is not level, remove flooring over the area which is out of level, level the substrate, and install new flooring; (c) where lippage has developed greater than 0.5 millimetre between boards, where cupping is occurring, and after all other remediation, sand back and refinish the floor to provide a flat even surface; 128 ts 98, 22 October 2025. 129 ts 99, 22 October 2025. 130 ts 119, 22 October 2025. 131 Exhibit 1 at pages 265 to 266. 132 Exhibit 1 at page 794. 133 Exhibit 1 at page 116. -- 72 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 73 (d) all work to be done in accordance with AFTA recommendations and to achieve compliance with the Guide; and (e) make good all affected surfaces. 400 The costings experts disagree on the scope of works and the costing. 401 Mr Mithen's costing for the flooring complaint items is $129,679 which includes Mr Kneebone's quote of $62,091.96 plus scaffolding and handrails, removing the glass balustrades and reinstall, removal and reinstallation of joinery kick-boards, take lights down, store offset then reconnect them, disconnect stair LEDs, take stair away and refit to new stair, demolition of flooring, disposal and installation on new floorboards and general rubbish removal.134 402 Mr Jones recommended the following for a total cost of $12,615.07 (including margin and GST):135 (a) Cut in expansion joints to flooring in accordance with AFTA requirements $800.00 (one day) (b) Supply and install expansion joints using flexible material $350 (c) Refix boards where cupped and new expansion joint $800 (one day) (d) Sand and finishing coating and sheen (93 metres/$65 metres $6,045 (e) Fixings, glue and consumables $500 134 ts 85 to 87, 22 October 2025. 135 Exhibit 1 at pages 846 and 860. -- 73 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 74 403 When questioned, Mr Deshon gave evidence that the installation of an expansion joint would not avoid capping and gaps.136137 Rather, Mr Deshon explained that with gaps it is doing the opposite - that is as boards shrink, the expansion joint will not stop the gaps. Mr Deshon explained that the floor would be 'popping' up if there were not enough expansion joints and moisture had caused them to pop. This is known as 'tenting'.138 Mr Deshon conceded that the lack of an expansion joint is a defect and it should be there as any floor needs an expansion joint regardless of what substrate it is on.139 404 Mr Kneebone agrees that the installation of an expansion joint would not avoid capping and gaps.140 When challenged as to whether moisture is causing the warping and cupping of floorboards, Mr Kneebone explained:141 So my experience as a floor installer, when I look at a board and I see issues with the floor, we're leading into certain conclusions based on experience. I've been dealing with timber, the nature of timber, how it moves and contracts due to water ingress, water take [sic], being too dry when it's installed or too wet when it's installed. So just like if you were to go into the forest and see a tree that had fallen over, it tells you something that there was a tree standing there in the past. So when I look at the floor, I also draw certain conclusions based on my experience and the nature of the timber … But in what we don't have and was not provided to me, and I still don't know that's available, is a certificate showing that from the mill, so when we purchase materials from the mill, they provide a certificate which has random testings of the moisture content in the material. And that's important because when I bring timber, especially form eastern states timber, bring it over to a more dry climate like here in Perth, I need to make sure before I instal that the correct moisture content, if I put a board in that's too wet, it's going to be larger and over time it will decrease. So when I look at the floor and make the observations, I'm looking back and going well somewhere there's been a high amount of moisture that's in that board and then over time it's acclimatised to the relative humidity in the house, and it has shrunk, so that's my observation[.] 405 It is uncontroversial and we find that the timber flooring is cupping and has excessive gapping and lippage. Even though there is not a certificate from the mill certifying the content of the moisture in the 136 Exhibit 1 at page 102. 137 ts 119, 22 October 2025. 138 Exhibit 1 at pages 102 to 103. 139 Exhibit 1 at page 103. 140 ts 120, 22 October 2025. 141 ts 260, 22 October 2025. -- 74 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 75 timber and there are no moisture readings of the timber before the Tribunal, we find based on the evidence of Mr Kneebone that the timber flooring had an elevated moisture content at the time of installation which resulted in the cupping, excessive gapping and lippage which represents work that is faulty or unsatisfactory. 406 Mr Kneebone's evidence is that all the flooring needs to be removed and replaced. The builder also stated the same in completing the Complaint Schedule. However, Mr Deshon has not stated this. Rather, Mr Deshon's opinion is that that there is cupping, lippage, some excessive gaps and peaking. In his report and in giving oral evidence, Mr Deshon did not conclude that all the flooring is to be removed and replaced. This is also reflected in his recommended scope of work. In other words, only the faulty work is to be remedied. On balance, we prefer the evidence of Mr Deshon rather than that of Mr Kneebone in regards to the rectification work required. 407 Mr Mithen's costing is, in our view, excessive as he allowed for all the flooring to be removed and replaced. Further, Mr Mithen's costings allow for scaffolding, removing all balustrades and other works which are not provided for in either of Mr Deshon's scope of works nor in Mr Jones' scope of works. 408 Mr Deshon testified that the 'scope of works is quite open'.142 We respectfully disagree. It is up to the building expert to set out the recommended scope of work, and if that is not possible to set out a scope of works then that must be explained in the expert's report. 409 Separately, Mr Jones' costing report allows for expansion joints which neither Mr Deshon nor Mr Kneebone comment on. However, Mr Jones' report fails to deal with lippage of boards, where the boards are not level, and the supply and installation of boards where required. 410 Consequently, in our view, neither of the costing provided by the costings experts is reasonable and proportionate for this item of complaint. However, we conclude, on balance, that the costing provided by Mr Kneebone of $62,091.96 (plus margin of 20% plus GST of 10%), or a total of $81,961.38 is the more reasonable and proportionate costing to remedy this item of complaint. 142 ts 114, 22 October 2025. -- 75 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 76 Complaint item 68 - Bathroom 1 - Cavity sliding door does not properly open 411 The owners complain the cavity sliding door in bathroom 1 does not open properly. 412 Mr Deshon reports the door leaf does not fully open into the cavity and does not provide the full design opening width proposed on the approved plans. When in the open position, Mr Deshon reports that 50 millimetres of the door leaf extends into the opening whereas the door schedule on the approved plans shows this to be a 1100 millimetres clear opening. Mr Deshon concludes that the failure to construct the building in accordance with the approved plans is representative of work not completed in a proper and proficient manner. 413 Mr Deshon explained that the cavity sliding door has a ring-pull on the front face of it, so that it goes all the way back into the cavity, but it is not giving a clear opening. According to Mr Deshon, the opening was not made large enough to accommodate the door143 and because the door does not open all the way, this is a defect.144 In questioning, Mr Deshon said that the door is likely to be the wrong width and that it needs to be cut as when he measured it, it was protruding 50 millimetres.145 414 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:146 (a) modify door installation so the clear opening width aligns with that shown on the approved plans. This is likely to require replacement with a narrower door leaf so that it can fully open; and (b) make good all affected surfaces. 415 The builder does not admit liability for this complaint item. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder states that this door had already been rectified and the owners were satisfied with this door at handover. Further, the builder asserts that in circumstances where in cross-examination, it was proposed that the door could be cut down so that the opening would be fully unobstructed when the door was is in the open position,147 that as no person has measured the existing door so that 143 ts 195, 22 October 2025. 144 ts 196, 22 October 2025. 145 ts 197, 22 October 2025. 146 Exhibit 1 at page 146. 147 Respondent's closing submissions filed on 26 January 2026 at page 40. -- 76 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 77 it fits withing the existing cavity, that the Tribunal should not make any order. 416 In his witness statement, Mr Glover states that the door was bowed, which was removed and refitted on or about 15 March 2023. Further, Mr Glover says that the door schedule does not provide that the cavity slider door is supposed to be a flush door which fits within the cavity and that the reference to a 1100 millimetres clear opening is measured from architrave to the architrave including the door and does not say anything about the size of the opening when the door is open. Further, Mr Glover states that the studwork which is behind the door to make provision for the opening does not allow for the door to slide entirely into the cavity, therefore the builder would have had to have made the cavity shallower in order to avoid the studwork to allow the door to fit entirely into the cavity, if that is what is required by the plans.148 417 Initially, the costings experts disagreed on the scope of work and the costing as they were unaware of the structure behind the door.149 Mr Mithen's costing for this item of complaint is $1,492 for five hours for a carpenter and four hours for a ceramic tiler. Mr Jones' costing for this item of complaint is $148.50 for one half hour to remove the door and one-half hour to adjust the stop within the cavity slider. However, at the final hearing, after some discussion between the experts, Mr Mithen opined that the cost of taking out the door, buying a new door and fitting it, would be about the same as modifying the door installation, which he costed at $1,492.150 418 In our view, while we acknowledge that the door was removed and refitted once in March 2023, we find the installation of the cavity sliding door in bathroom one has not been constructed as per the approved plans and is defective as it does not open properly because it protrudes 50 millimetres and therefore does not function as intended with the consequence the work is faulty or unsatisfactory. 419 In our view the scope of works is to remove the existing cavity sliding door and refit with a new door that properly fits and all affected surfaces are made good. On this scope of works, we accept Mr Mithen's 148 Exhibit 1 at page 951. 149 ts 194, 22 October 2025. 150 ts 199, 22 October 2025. -- 77 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 78 revised costing of $1,492 to be reasonable and proportionate for this item of complaint. Complaint item 70 - Mud and powder room - floor waste have not been recessed into the slab 420 The owners complain the floor waste in the mud and power room have not been recessed into the slab. 421 Mr Deshon reports that this diminishes the aesthetic of the polished concrete floor and adversely affects the floor drainage. Mr Deshon says that normally floor waste is recessed into the slab surface so that the top is flush with the top of the slab. Failure to do so, according to Mr Deshon represents work that is faulty or unsatisfactory. 422 The owners' position is that it is a plumber who installs the wastes and therefore it is the builder's responsibility to ensure that when the wastes are installed, that they are in the correct location/height.151 The owners rely on Mr Deshon who gave the following evidence:152 [T]he floor wastes are just placed on the - they've just been placed on top of the slab. You can pull them off. They're just loose on there. They haven't been installed and recessed down into the slab to give a neat finish. They need to be cut out, or the concrete needs to be recessed, so cut out, ground out, or the concrete needs to be recessed, so cut out, ground out so that that floor waste can sit flush with the surface of the floor. You can imagine water is never going to go down those, the way they've installed. It's the builder's responsibility to ensure they are flush with the slab, and he may put that in the plumber's scope of work to do that. It would be good to do that before - so it would be good to have those cut down into the floor so that when the floor polisher comes through, he can neaten up the surface of the floor. If it's done afterwards, then it would be up to the plumber to make sure that the plumber can recess those down into the floor, and then it's finished neatly on completion[.] 423 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:153 (a) recess the floor waste into the slab surface; and (b) make good any affected surfaces. 151 Owners' written closing submissions filed on 27 January 2026 at page 59. 152 ts 460, 1 December 2025. 153 Exhibit 1 at page 149. -- 78 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 79 424 The builder does not admit liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder states that the owners engaged their own floor polishing contractor and therefore this work is not part of the building contract with the owners. 425 The builder refers to clause 2(f) of the building contract to support its position.154 That clause provides the builder does not accept responsibility and is not liable for performance of the owners' items and is not liable for the owners' work.155 The terms 'owner's items' and 'owner's work' are defined by reference to a 'written agreement'.156 There is no written agreement before the Tribunal which provides that the owners are to recess the floor waste into the slab or that the builder's plumber is not responsible for such work where the plumber installs the wastes. 426 In addition, the builder relies on Mr Glover's witness statement where he states that Mr Sweetman booked and paid for the tradesman or contractor who provided the polished concrete floor and that the builder was not involved in that process.157 427 Mr Glover states in his witness statement that the contractor should have recessed the grates as part of their work.158 Because of this, in their closing written submissions, the builder submits, following Shami and Teo [2017] WASAT 73 and Beladinejad and UCPM Pty Ltd [2025] WASAT 52 that there is no basis for the Tribunal to find that the builder engaged, supervised or paid the contractor who performed the floor polishing work. 428 We prefer the evidence of Mr Deshon who states that it is the plumber who is to install the wastes. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the task of recessing the floor wastes into the slab was agreed to be undertaken by the owners or their polishing contractor. The consequence is that the builder, who engaged the plumber, must ensure the work of the plumber in installing the wastes are at the correct location and height. It is clear this was not done as the builder's position is that the polishing contractor should have recessed the grates as part of their work. 154 Exhibit 1 at page 278. 155 Exhibit 1 at page 807. 156 Exhibit 1 at page 818. 157 Exhibit 1 at page 952. 158 Ibid. -- 79 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 80 429 It is uncontroversial, and we find that the floor waste in the mud and powder room was not recessed into the slab and is therefore represents works that is faulty or unsatisfactory. 430 The costings experts disagree on the scope of works and the costing for this complaint item. Mr Jones is of the view that the job is 'quiet a small job to do' of about two hours or $297.159 Mr Mithen is of the view that a specialist concrete cutting operator is required for some six hours to attend to cut the polished concrete at $125 per hour which is dirty work and an hour for chalking and some time for tidy-up.160 We note that this rate per hour is less than the rate of $130 per hour for a plumber used by Mr Mithen (see for example complaint items 83 and 88). 431 Mr Deshon explained this would not be an easy task, it would be time consuming and patchy.161 432 We are not persuaded that the work requires a special concrete cutting operator, as this is not specified by Mr Deshon in his scope of works nor in giving evidence. However, we accept that the task is not an easy task and is likely to be time consuming and may be patchy. We prefer the costing of Mr Mithen rather than that of Mr Jones which, in our view, is too simplistic. Consequently, we accept Mr Mithen's costing of $1,303 as reasonable and proportionate for this complaint item. Complaint item 72 - Bedroom 1 en-suite - water leaking through vanity 433 The owners complain that there is water residue on the face of skirting tiles below the vanity under the left-hand side bowl which appears to emanate from the silicon under the cabinet in the ensuite of bedroom 1. 434 In his report, Mr Deshon states that water appears to be emanating from the silicon under the cabinet as there is residue on the face of the skirting tiles. Mr Deshon described the pattern of the leak - there is no splashing up the wall - rather it is isolated and a clear leak where the water runs down from the silicon joint.162 435 According to Mr Deshon such water flowing between the underside of the vanity and skirting tile indicate the construction of the wet areas 159 ts 463, 1 December 2025. 160 ts 462 to 463, 1 December 2025. 161 ts 464, 1 December 2025. 162 ts 468, 1 December 2025. -- 80 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 81 does not meet the performance requirements of the NCC Part 2.4.1 which requires that water must be prevented from penetrating behind fittings and linings and into concealed spaces or bathrooms and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory work. 436 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:163 (a) remove vanity cabinetry and any linings required to inspect behind; (b) identify the source of the water; (c) repair the cause of the leak; (d) reinstate the vanity and all finishes and linings; and (e) make good all affected surfaces. 437 The builder does not admit liability for this complaint item. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder states that the cabinet would be showing signs of damage if it was leaking that high up and that there was no damage present at the inspection with DR Plumbing on 10 April 2025. Further, the builder asserts that despite the testing done by Mr Deshon, he was not able to activate the leak or repeat it and it is therefore unsatisfactory for the owners who have failed to establish the cause of the leak to place the cost of further exploration on the builder. 438 It is for the owners to adduce sufficient evidence to support the claim they make, in this case, water leaking through the vanity in the ensuite of bedroom 1. In our view, while the builder could have put on a report from a building inspector and therefore has failed to put on a responsive building report to the owners' claim, we find the testing carried out by Mr Deshon in respect of this complaint item was, at best, superficial and is inconclusive as conceded by Mr Deshon when he gave evidence that:164 … I did do some testing. So turning on taps, running the sinks, trying - trying to - to work out what's causing the leak. … 163 Exhibit 1 at page 151. 164 ts 469 to 470, 1 December 2025. -- 81 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 82 I couldn't - I couldn't activate it. I couldn't get it to repeat. Had a look in the cabinetry. So it wasn't in the cabinetry, which might make me thinks that it was the waste leaking. It appears to be back inside the wall[.] 439 Therefore, we are not persuaded, on the evidence before the Tribunal, where Mr Deshon's evidence is that he 'couldn't activate [the water leak]', that there is in fact water leaking through the vanity in the ensuite of bedroom 1. Consequently, we decline to make any order in regards this complaint item. Complaint item 74 - Window reveals - intermittently are not straight and exhibit deflection 440 The owners complain that the finish of the square set window reveals are intermittently out of square or are not straight. 441 According to Mr Deshon, the finish of window reveals in a new building that are intermittently out of square or work that is not straight diminishes the aesthetics of the installation and represents work that is faulty or unsatisfactory. Attached to Mr Deshon's report are seven photos which show the deflection in a number of window reveals. 442 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:165 (a) cut out and remove reveals which exhibit excessive deflection; (b) install new reveal material straight and true; (c) flush in with external angles and square set the reveals, and paint to match existing; and (d) make good all affected surfaces. 443 Mr Deshon clarified his scope of works as follows:166 The deflection isn't on the actual plaster bead. It's behind the plaster bead, so – which means the plaster beads don't have to be removed. So you can cut the sections out where it's bulging and replace those sections. You don't have to replace the whole – whole reveal. And then refill and re-plaster and re-level where it's un-levelled. Sand, patch, paint. That's it. 444 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder refers to a quote from 165 Exhibit 1 at page 154, 166 ts 490 to 491, 1 December 2025. -- 82 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 83 Top Teng Walls & Ceilings dated 15 April 2025. While the quote refers to complaint item 74 it does not provide an itemised costing. Rather, the quote covers seven complaint items for one lump sum amount. 445 The costings experts state in their joint expert report that they disagree on the costing for this complaint item. 446 Mr Mithen's revised costing is $3,920 on the basis that work would be undertaken in conjunction with other work, such as painting. Mr Mithen stated:167 Six windows. Yes, all various - all various sizes. So I've allowed (indistinct) four hours per window to take off the reveal - plaster reveal, modify the bulge, reline the angles, re-angle, and a base coat, finish coat. Four hours per window and then four hours for the painter to come along and paint them at the other end. That's it. 447 Mr Jones' costing is $1,618.65 for six hours to cut out and remove the reveals which exhibit excessive deflection then to refit the reveals to make sure they are straight. One half day was allowed by Mr Jones for painting. 448 The time allowed for painting by the costings experts was about the same - four hours per Mr Mithen's costings and one-half day per Mr Jones' costing. The hourly rate used by the costings experts for the painter differed slightly. 449 The key difference between the costings experts is the number of hours required to remediate the reveals. Mr Mithen's costing is four hours per window (six windows) or 24 hours in total as compared with Mr Jones' total of six hours. 450 While we acknowledge that there may be difficulties doing remedial work in a finished home, in which Mr Mithen states there may be issues with the carpet,168 which we understand to mean that the carpet (and other items such as furniture) need to have a cover put on for protection, and therefore some time is to be allowed for ensuring items such as floor coverings and furniture are protected, we are not persuaded that the scope of works requires a total of 24 hours as set out in Mr Mithen's costings. Because of this, we accept the costing provided by Mr Jones. 167 ts 485, 1 December 2025. 168 ts 491, 1 December 2025. -- 83 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 84 451 It is uncontroversial and we find that there are window reveals which are intermittently out of square or are not straight and represents work that is faulty or unsatisfactory. We accept the scope of works recommended by Mr Deshon. We do not accept Mr Mithen's costing as it is excessive and not proportionate for this item of complaint. We prefer and accept the costing of Mr Jones for this complaint item of $1,618.65. Complaint item 75 - Laundry ceiling - water stains 452 The owners complain there is brown staining on the laundry ceiling indicating a leak from the roof where the leak was repaired but the ceiling was not painted. 453 Mr Deshon explained that Mr Sweetman informed him that the builder had come back and repaired the leak.169 It is Mr Deshon's opinion that:170 … The - the builder should, if - if water - water - there's a National Construction Code requirement that water doesn't come into the building. If it - if it does, then it's the builder's responsibility to repair the cause and the consequence of that water leak. 454 According to Mr Deshon, the failure to remediate all resulting damage caused by defective building work represents rectification work not completed in a proper and proficient manner. 455 Mr Deshon recommended the following scope of work:171 (a) paint the laundry ceiling matching the original colour. 456 The costings expert agree on the cost for the remedial work is $504. 457 The builder does not admit liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder states the owners engaged an independent solar installer to install solar panels which caused the leak. The builder states the installation of solar panels on the roof, which caused the leak resulting in damage to the laundry ceiling, was not part of their scope of works. 458 Mr Glover in his witness statement stated:172 169 ts 493, 1 December 2025. 170 ts 493, 1 December 2025. 171 Exhibit 1 at page 156. 172 Exhibit 1 at page 953. -- 84 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 85 116. On or about 15 December 2022, the roof plumber engaged by Skytree (Top Rung Roofing), carried out the works on the roof which included above where the leak is pictured. 117. On or about February 2023, Mr and Mrs Sweetman engaged a solar panel contractor to install the solar panels in that location. 118. Mr and Mrs Sweetman wanted to make use of the scaffolding which was already in place for their contractor to use to install the solar panels. 119. After the solar panels were installed, the leak was reported. No leaks in that location were reported until after Mr and Mrs Sweetman's solar panels which involved the loosening of screws in that location to accommodate the solar panels and surrounding infrastructure. 459 Mr Glover was not questioned on any of the above statements when he was cross-examined. Mr Sweetman gave no evidence which challenged Mr Glover's statements (as set out in immediately preceding paragraph). 460 Consequently, we are not persuaded on the evidence before the Tribunal that the staining damage to the ceiling of the laundry was caused by works undertaken by the builder rather than by the solar panel contractor engaged by the owners. On this basis, we decline to make any order for this item of complaint. Complaint item 76 - Floor - out of level 461 This item of complaint is dealt with under complaint item 47 - 50 (see above at [393] to [410]). Complaint item 77 - Theatre room - wall lights 462 The owners complain that the wall lights are an inconsistent illumination colour and will not align to the same illumination colour setting concurrently and that there is one light with a different colour to the other lights. 463 Mr Deshon explains that the light fitting illumination colour can be changed between three different colour settings by flicking the switch off then on within three seconds, however, all lights are on the same switch so would have needed to be installed initially to a consistent illumination colour setting. According to Mr Deshon, the lights were not installed on a consistent illumination colour setting with the consequence that there will always be an inconsistent illumination colour as they cannot be -- 85 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 86 changed independently of each other. Mr Deshon opines that the failure to provide consistent light colour to all fittings represents work not being completed in a proper and proficient manner. 464 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:173 (a) disconnect the odd colour light; (b) change the light setting so all lights are consistent; (c) reconnect the light so all lights are a consistent light setting; and (d) make good all affected surfaces. 465 Mr Deshon described the work as a 'quick fix' and that '[i]t's straightforward. They - you can - you've just got to make sure they're all aligned before you put them on the wall'.174 466 Originally, the builder did not admit this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder states that this complaint is a warranty issue with Beacon Lighting. However, in closing written submissions, the builder concedes liability for this item of complaint. 467 The costings experts do not agree on costing for this item of complaint. 468 Mr Mithen costs the remedial work using the quote dated 19 March 2025 from Crown Electrical Service WA which quoted 3 hours at $170 per hour or $510. To that was added time for a painter to touch up to arrive at a total cost of $818. 469 Mr Jones costed the remedial work at 20 minutes at $100 per hour to change the light setting on the globe or a total cost of $20. In giving oral evidence at the final hearing, Mr Jones conceded that an electrician would not do the work for any less than one hour or a cost of $170.175 470 It is uncontroversial and we find that the wall lights in the theatre room are an inconsistent illumination colour and will not align to the same illumination colour setting concurrently and that there is one light 173 Exhibit 1 at page 158. 174 ts 498 to 499, 1 December 2025. 175 ts 509, 1 December 2025. -- 86 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 87 with a different colour to the other lights. This represents work that is faulty or unsatisfactory. 471 We accept Mr Deshon's evidence that the remedial work for this complaint item is 'straightforward' in that the scope of works is limited to an electrician disconnecting the odd colour light, changing the setting and then reconnecting the light so that all lights are a consistent light setting and given that Mr Jones' testified that an electrician will not do any work for less than one hour, in our view, one hour at $170 per hour for an electrician, or a total costing of $170, is reasonable and proportionate for this item of complaint. Complaint item 83 - Cabana - gutter not fitted 472 The owners complain that a gutter is not fitted to the Cabana. 473 Mr Deshon reports that a gutter was located on the Cabana deck but not installed. Mr Deshon reports that surface water is collected and concentrated by the roof, and without having a gutter to collect and dispose of the water, the water is likely to adversely affect the fence and retaining wall, and cause nuisance to the neighbouring property. Mr Deshon opines that the failure to construct a building (the Cabana) in accordance with the NCC Volume 2, performance requirement 2.2.1, which requires surface water resulting from a storm having an average occurrence interval of 20 years and which is collected or concentrated by a building or sitework, must be disposed of in a way that avoids the likelihood of damage or nuisance to any other property, represents faulty or unsatisfactory building work. 474 In giving evidence, Mr Deshon explained that the Cabana is a class 10a building and that surface water must be conveyed to an appropriate outfall and that a gutter is required. 475 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:176 (a) install guttering to the Cabana in accordance with SA HB 39- 2015; (b) connect gutter into a suitable stormwater system in accordance with AS 3500.3-2018; and (c) make good all affected surfaces. 176 Exhibit 1 at page 166. -- 87 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 88 476 The costings experts agreed on the costing of $1,980. 477 The builder does not admit liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder states that the gutter is to be installed as per recommendation of Thorton Roofing Pty Ltd in the quote dated 14 April 2025 into the stormwater. Further, the builder states that the owners were never charged for this as the work was not completed as the gutter was supplied but never installed due to the breakdown in their relationship. 478 According to Mr Glover's witness statement, this item of complaint is incomplete work and that the builder was and remains prepared to install the gutter but has been prevented from doing so by the owners.177 Neither the builder's nor Mr Glover's evidence was challenged. 479 In closing written submissions, the builder submits that in circumstances where the owners have denied the builder access to the property with the result the work is incomplete, or work in progress, as opposed to defective, there can be no basis for the Tribunal to make a building remedy order under s 36(1) of the BSCRA Act. 480 As already stated, but repeated here, the owners moved into the property in October 2022 and by 30 May 2023 had 'had enough' and from that date they denied access for the builder to carry out remedial works. Mr Deshon completed his report on 18 June 2024. 481 We infer from Mr Deshon's statement, that a gutter was located on the Cabana deck but not installed and that the gutter was supplied before 30 May 2023 which is when the owners denied access to the builder to carry out remedial works. Because of this we find that this item of complaint is work in progress in that the gutter was supplied as it was located on the Cabana deck but had not been installed and the owners have not been charged for the gutter or the installation of it. 482 The result is that we cannot find that the work is not carried out in a proper and proficient manner or is faulty or unsatisfactory as the gutter is on the Cabana deck and is waiting to be installed. Consequently, we decline to make any order for this item of complaint. 177 Exhibit 1 at page 953. -- 88 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 89 Complaint item 84 - Cabana lights - not functioning correctly 483 The owners complain that three out of the four down lights in the Cabana do not work and that the cables have been left exposed at the rear of the Cabana. 484 Mr Deshon reports that AS 3000-2018 section 3.3.2.6 requires wiring systems installed must minimise the risk of mechanical damage and that such failure represents work that is not completed in a proper and proficient manner. 485 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:178 (a) engage a suitably qualified electrician to assess the installation and diagnose the reason the lights do not operate; (b) modify or repair the lighting installation so that it is in accordance with AS 3000-2018 and operates correctly; (c) install provisions to protect cabling in accordance with AS 3000- 2018 Electrical installations wiring rules; and (d) make good all affected surfaces. 486 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder proposes for Fozlek Electrical Pty Ltd to complete the remedial work for $911 (including margin and GST) as set out in an undated letter to Mr Glover.179 487 The costings experts do not agree on the costing for this item of complaint. 488 Mr Mithen costed the work, taking into account his inspection and the quote from Crown Electrical Service WA dated 19 March 2025 for $1,334 adding the margin and GST to arrive at $1,762.180 489 In contrast, in his report Mr Jones costs the remedial work at $1,403.181 However, at hearing, Mr Jones corrected his costing by removing the costing for installing new decking boards but to leave the 178 Exhibit 1 at page 168. 179 Exhibit 1 at page 711. 180 Exhibit 1 at page 240 and ts 517 to 518, 1 December 2025. 181 Exhibit 1 at page 871. -- 89 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 90 cost at $1,000.182 Adjusting this amount for margin plus GST gives a costing of $1,485. 490 It is uncontroversial and we find that three out of the four down lights in the Cabana do not work and that the cables have been left exposed at the rear of the Cabana and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory work. 491 We accept the scope of work as set out by Mr Deshon. The difference in costings of the costings experts is insignificant at $277. On balance, we accept the costing provided by Mr Mithen at $1,762 as the reasonable cost for completing the remedial work for this item of complaint. Complaint item 87 - Pool toilet block building - wall penetration not sealed 492 This item of complaint is dealt with under complaint item 109.6 (see below at [589] to [600]). Complaint item 91 - Alfresco roof north elevation - barge capping not adequately fixed 493 The owners complain that the barge capping is not adequately fixed on the north side of the alfresco. 494 Mr Deshon reports that the poor fixing of the capping facilities movement in wind events is driving rain to enter roof cavity. Mr Deshon opines that the installation has not been completed in accordance with HB 39-2015 section 8.2(a) which requires roof flashings and capping to be fastened to withstand wind pressures and thermal movements and therefore represents work not completed in a proper and proficient manner. 495 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:183 (a) ensure flashing is properly fixed in accordance with HB 39-2015; and (b) make good all affected surfaces. 496 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder states that it proposes 182 ts 523, 1 December 2025. 183 Exhibit 1 at page 177. -- 90 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 91 to install additional screws by reference to the quote dated 14 April 2025 from Thornton Roofing Pty Ltd for a cost of $70 (excluding GST).184 497 The costings experts disagree on the costing for this item of complaint. Mr Mithen's costing of $409 is for two hours for a plumber plus material of $50. In his report, Mr Jones' allowed one hour for a costing of $148.50 and nothing for materials as a 'typical tradesperson would have [plugs] in their car'.185 498 It is uncontroversial and we find that the barge capping is not adequately fixed on the north side of the alfresco and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory work. 499 We accept the scope of work as set out by Mr Deshon. Neither Mr Deshon nor the costings experts gave evidence that the remedial work is complex and Mr Deshon accepted that the work could be done using a ladder.186 We find Mr Mithen's costing of $459 is excessive. We accept the costing provided by Mr Jones of $148.50 as reasonable and proportionate for this item of complaint. Complaint item 93 - Southside - air-conditioning service penetrations not sealed and not draining into pipework 500 The owners complain that the air conditioning service penetrations are not sealed and are not draining into the pipework. 501 Mr Deshon reports the penetrations for the air conditioning service pipes are not sealed where they penetrate the wall exposing it to water ingress, which is a contravention of the NCC Volume 2 Part 2.2.2. Further, Mr Deshon reports that the condensate drains have not been connected into the draining system thereby causing staining to the concrete and therefore represents work that is faulty or unsatisfactory. 502 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:187 (a) seal the service penetrations with an appropriate, paintable, UV stable filling compound; (b) paint patching to match existing wall; 184 Exhibit 1 at page 780. 185 ts 530, 1 December 2025. 186 ts 527, 1 December 2025. 187 Exhibit 1 at page 179. -- 91 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 92 (c) run condensate drains into drainage network; and (d) make good all affected surfaces. 503 The costings experts disagree on the costing for this item of complaint. Mr Mithen's costing is $1,871 for 11 hours of work and Mr Jones' costing is $445.50 for one and one half hours of work. Mr Jones' testified that the condensate drain on the ground may drain onto a pavement or a hard substrate surface as long as that surface falls away from the house, which is does in this case.188 504 The builder accepts liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder proposes the works to be undertaken by Dlux Air Pty Ltd per quote 23504 dated 27 April 2025 for $275.189 505 It is uncontroversial and we find that the penetrations for the air conditioning service pipes are not sealed where they penetrate the wall exposing it to water ingress and therefore represents work that is faulty or unsatisfactory. 506 However, we are not satisfied that the condensate drains on ground level which drain onto the exposed aggregate surface where the fall is away from the house is work that faulty or unsatisfactory as no reference to the NCC or the Guide is provided to support this position. Consequently, we accept the scope of work as set out by Mr Deshon, apart from item (c). We accept the costing of Mr Jones of $445.50 which excludes (c) of the scope of works set out by Mr Deshon (see above at [502]), as reasonable and proportionate for this item of complaint. Complaint item 94 - External South elevation - cracking at wall junctions facilitating moisture ingress 507 The owners complain that there are voids in the junction between external coating and facia or soffit and cracking in the wall movement joint sealant thereby facilitating moisture ingress. 508 Mr Deshon reports that the Guide provides that cracking between dissimilar material is defective work if it exists at handover or exceeds 1 millimetre in the first 12 months of completion. Mr Deshon relies on the handover report (dated 26 April 2023) that the cracking occurred within the first 12 month after completion of the home. 188 ts 535, 1 December 2025. 189 Exhibit 1 at page 821. -- 92 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 93 Further, Mr Deshon reports voids in the junction between external coating and facia or soffit and the cracking in the wall movement joint sealant contravene the NCC Volume 2 section 2.2.2. 509 Mr Deshon's recommends the following scope of work:190 (a) seal cracking at junctions with an appropriate, flexible paintable, UV stable filling compound; (b) paint patching to match existing wall; and (c) make good all affected surfaces. 510 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder proposes to complete the scope of works as recommended by Mr Deshon. 511 The costings experts disagree on the costing for this item of complaint. Mr Mithen's costing is $2,877. Mr Jones' original costing is $445.50 which he revised at hearing to $742.50.191 The major point of difference between the two costings experts is the method of access to do the works. Mr Jones testified that an extension ladder could be used for work up to six metres. Mr Mithen disagrees, stating this is not safe.192 Mr Deshon did not think a ladder up to six metres could be put up with the base extended out one metre and that using an extension ladder to undertake the remedial work would be risky.193 512 It is uncontroversial and we find that there are voids in the junction between external coating and facia or soffit and cracking in the wall movement joint sealant thereby facilitating moisture ingress and therefore represents work that is faulty or unsatisfactory. 513 We accept the scope of work as recommended by Mr Deshon. We do not agree with Mr Jones that a ladder is sufficient to carry out the remedial works for this item of complaint. In this regard, we prefer the evidence of Mr Deshon and Mr Mithen and accept the costing provided by Mr Mithen of $2,877 which includes hire of scaffolding as being reasonable and proportionate for this item of complaint. 190 Exhibit 1 at page 180. 191 ts 549, 1 December 2025. 192 ts 549 to 550, 1 December 2025. 193 ts 551, 1 December 2025. -- 93 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 94 Complaint item 95 - South Elevation - construction residue in plumbing pipework 514 The owners complain there is blockage in the plumbing due to construction residue. 515 This item of complaint is dealt with under complaint item 109.6 (see below at [589] to [600]). Complaint item 96 - Cracking at fascia/wall junction on the south elevation of the alfresco 516 The owners complain there is cracking between the wall finish and the fascia. 517 This item of complaint is dealt with under complaint item 90 (see above at [160] to [165]). Complaint item 97 - Alfresco roof north elevation - barge capping not adequately fixed 518 The owners complain the poor fixing of the capping facilitates movements in wind events and driving rain to enter roof cavity. 519 This item of complaint is dealt with under complaint item 91 (see above at [493] to [499]). Complaint item 98 - Pool toilet block building - inappropriate barge fixings 520 The owners complain that zinc coated steel nails have been used to fix the flashing and the fixings have not been installed properly. 521 This item of complaint is dealt with under complaint item 92 (see above at [166] to [171]). Complaint item 99 - Southside - air conditioning service penetrations not sealed and not draining into pipe work 522 The owners complain that penetrations for air conditioning service pipes are not sealed where they penetrate the wall exposing it to water ingress. 523 This item of complaint is dealt with under complaint item 93 (see above at [500] to [506]). -- 94 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 95 Complaint item 100 - External south elevation - cracking at wall junctions facilitating moisture ingress 524 The owners complain there are voids in the junction between external coating and facia or soffit, and cracking in the wall movement joint sealant facilitating moisture ingress. 525 This item of complaint is dealt with under complaint item 94 (see above at [507] to [513]). Complaint item 101 - South elevation - construction residue in plumbing pipework 526 The owners' complaint there is blockage in the plumbing due to construction residue that presents as wall coating being washed into it. 527 This item of complaint is dealt with under complaint item 95 (see above at [514] to [515]) and complaint item 109.6 (see below at [589] to [600]). Complaint item 102 - Alfresco - rangehood ducting incomplete 528 The owners complain the shroud has not been installed around the rangehood causing smoke to enter the ceiling space and flow through the house. 529 Mr Deshon reports that the NCC Volume 2 performance requirement P2.4.5 requires contaminated air to be disposed of in a manner which does not unduly create a nuisance or hazard to people in the building or other property. 530 Mr Deshon testified that no shroud/stainless steel cover was left at the property.194 531 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:195 (a) install shroud to rangehood exhaust system and seal to ensure compliance with the NCC; and (b) make good all affected surfaces. 532 The builder does not accept liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder states the shroud is only cosmetic and the rangehood is installed correctly and in any event 194 ts 557 to 558, 1 December 2025. 195 Exhibit 1 at page 183. -- 95 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 96 the shroud was never supplied by the owners with the rangehood. Further, the builder states that it had a stainless-steel cover manufactured and it was left at the property, but the owners denied the builder access and therefore the builder could not install the cover. 533 In his witness statement, Mr Glover states that the builder arranged for a stainless-steel cover to be fabricated and prepared. Besides asserting that the builder was denied access to the property by the owners, Mr Glover does not state in his witness statement or in giving evidence if the stainless steel cover was in fact fabricated and paid for, and if so, if it was delivered to the property or if it is still with or under the control of the builder. 534 On balance, we accept Mr Deshon's evidence and consequently we are not persuaded that there is a stainless-steel cover at the property. Consequently, we find that the shroud has not been installed around the rangehood causing smoke to enter the ceiling space and flow through the house which represents faulty or unsatisfactory work. 535 The costings experts disagree on the costing for this item of complaint. Mr Mithen's costing is $3,135. Mr Jones' costing is $1,262.25. 536 In our view, Mr Mithen's costing is at the higher end, in particular with the caulking up. Consequently, on balance, we prefer the costing of Mr Jones of $1,262.25 for this item of complaint. Complaint item 105 - Wall is not straight near family room kitchenette 537 The owners complain the wall is not straight near the family room kitchenette. 538 Mr Deshon reports the shadow line is not the constituent width due to a bulge in the wall which appears to exceed the maximum 3 millimetres over a 2.4 metre level set out in the Guide section 10.02. Such defect in the wall, says Mr Deshon, does not meet a reasonable standard of finish expected in a new building and represents work that is faulty or unsatisfactory. 539 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:196 (a) remove wall lining over the affected area; 196 Exhibit 1 at page 189. -- 96 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 97 (b) straighten the wall frame; (c) apply new plasterboard lining to the area; (d) flush in the new wall lining to existing lining and paint to match existing wall; and (e) make good all affected surfaces. 540 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder proposes that Toprung Roofing, who provided an undated quote but did not include a scope of works for this item of complaint to rectify the complaint. 541 The costings experts do not agree on costing for this item of complaint. There is a significant difference in costing. 542 Mr Mithen's costing is $2,350 for six hours of carpentry to get in behind the wall to see what is going on, four hours for a gyprocker to come in an reline/reflush the wall and four hours for a painter. 543 Mr Jones challenged the scope of works stating, 'it's an assumption'197 based on a 'visual representation of what we can see without x-ray vision of what's in the wall'.198 Mr Jones explained that the problem could be the strut - which doesn't require straightening of the wall frame. Rather, according to Mr Jones, the plasterboard at the top needs to be cut 200 by 250 to put a drill in and if the issue is the strap, you put the plasterboard back into it and flush over it then paint for a costing of $843.48. 544 It is uncontroversial and we find that the wall is not straight near the family room kitchenette and therefore represents work that is faulty or unsatisfactory. 545 While we accept the scope of work as recommended by Mr Deshon, we are not persuaded by the higher costing provided by Mr Mithen, in particular the six hours of carpentry. We accept the costing provided by Mr Jones of $843.48 is reasonable and proportionate for this item of complaint. 197 ts 565, 1 December 2025. 198 ts 565 to 566, 1 December 2025. -- 97 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 98 Complaint item 106 - Garage door bowed 546 The owners complain the garage door is bowed and does not finish flush with the cladding in a closed position. 547 This item of complaint is dealt with under complaint item 43 above (see [342] to [356]). Complaint item 107 - Front elevation balcony fascia screws popping 548 The owners complain that screws are popping on the front face of the balcony which dimmish the aesthetics of the balcony. 549 Mr Deshon reports that the Guide section 10.20 provides that screws popping in the sheeting is defective if it exists at handover or occurs within the first 24 months of completion and can be seen from a normal viewing position. 550 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:199 (a) sand back flushing compound where screws have popped; (b) if filler compound is loose, remove and replace; (c) finish and paint fascia; and (d) make good all affected surfaces. 551 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder proposes that Paul Toyne rectify this complaint based on the quote of $400. 552 The costings experts do not agree on the costing. Mr Mithen's revised costing is $871 is for six hours for a painter to dig out the old fill, re-screw, patch up the old, patch up the new and then repaint.200 Mr Mithen's costing is based on there being screws and not button-head screws. Mr Jones' costing is $348.98 for two and one-half hours to sand back flushing compound where screws have popped and to paint and make good the fascia. 553 It is uncontroversial and we find that that screws are popping on the front face of the balcony and therefore represents work that faulty or unsatisfactory. 199 Exhibit 1 at page 191. 200 ts 568 to 569, 1 December 2025. -- 98 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 99 554 While we accept the scope of work as set out by Mr Deshon, we are not persuaded by the higher costing provided by Mr Mithen. This is because there is no evidence before the Tribunal as to how many screws have popped on the front face of the balcony. The photograph provided by Mr Deshon in his report only shows two screws which have popped. Consequently, we accept the costing provided by Mr Jones of $348.98 as reasonable and proportionate for this item of complaint. Complaint item 109.1 - Plumbing - No up-to-date ASCON drawing submitted to DMIRS 555 The owners requested to withdraw this item of complaint at the final hearing as the ASCON drawing ('flimsy') was provided by the builder.201 We gave leave for this item to be withdrawn (see below at [770]). Complaint item 109.2 - Disconnector gully side of house - incorrect collar 556 The owners complain that a DN100 finishing collar was used rather than the approved disconnector gully mound. Further, the owners complain that the disconnector gully is finished at ground level rather than proud to prevent stormwater ingress into the sewerage system. 557 The builder admits this complaint. In the Complaint Schedule, the builder states that it proposes to remove and install the correct collar and fitting as proposed by DR Plumbing in their quote of 9 April 2025.202 DR Plumbing in their quote provide:203 A gully mound can be fitted inside this and cut down to sit 25mm above concrete to meet AS3500. No concrete will have to be cut in order to do this and it is a very simple operation to rectify. 558 Further, DR Plumbing in the quote states the above work would take 45 minutes at $130 per hour. We note the builder did not call DR Plumbing to give evidence at the final hearing. 559 Mr Lewis explained that every property is required to have a sewer overflow relief gully as provided for AS 3500.2-2018 Part 2 section 4.6.6.7. In particular the standard requires the height between the top of the overflow gully riser, or the invert of the overflow pipe, and the finished surface to be a minimum of 75 millimetre, except where the gully riser is located in a path or paved area, where it shall be finished at a level so as to prevent the ponding and ingress of water. Mr Lewis 201 Exhibit 8. 202 Exhibit 1 at page 782. 203 Ibid. -- 99 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 100 opined that the overflow relief gully at the property terminates at the incorrect height as compared to the finished floor level. 560 Apart from describing a photograph attached to his report,204 Mr Lewis did not explain whether he undertook a 'water test' to confirm ponding of the water. Rather Mr Lewis' evidence is that the gully dome is sitting proud because the water is not going into the waste drain.205 Further, Mr Lewis failed to explain how he reached the calculation regarding the height of the overflow gully riser.206 561 The following scope of work costing $1,342 (excluding GST) is recommended by Mr Lewis:207 (a) remove the concrete around the riser; (b) supply and install a new gully dome at the correct height; and (c) remove the rubble from the area. 562 Mr Lewis explained that about six hours at $220 per hour is required to jackhammer the concrete, remove the concrete from site, install the new drains at the correct height, then clean up.208 563 Mr Mithen in costing this complaint added $750 to 'patch it up, tidy it up, plus GST, plus margin' four about four hours of work at $85 per hour plus the concrete.209 564 The total claimed by the owners for this item of complaint is $2,761. 565 The costings experts disagree on scope of works and the costing. 566 Mr Jones agreed that AS 3500.2-2018 must be complied with and explained that the complaint could be remedied for about $900 by:210 A very simple way is to install a concrete dome over the top of it and sleeve to the inside of the gully and place it over the top of it and sleeve to the inside of the gully and place it over the top. The concrete dome itself, it rises up, and you can get them in 50mm or 100mm, and you sleeve them and place them over the top. So no concrete is needed to be cut to sleeve and put straight over the tip. And given the exposed 204 Exhibit 1 at page 235 (second photograph). 205 ts 48, 23 October 2025. 206 ts 49, 23 October 2025. 207 Exhibit 1 at page 223. 208 ts 44 and 45, 23 October 2025. 209 ts 44, 23 October 2025. 210 ts 50, 23 October 2025. -- 100 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 101 aggregate was in contention by the client or builder, that is another issue. So the sleeving of the dome, you can cut the inside of the internal diameter of the pipe out and put the dome straight over the top of it. And that is it. Done. 567 However, Mr Lewis said that the scope of works recommended by Mr Jones which involved the inclusion of a concrete dome wand sleeving with respect to the gully is not 'the appropriate method' and that the work 'needs to be done correctly to the standard that plumbing tradesmen should work at'.211 Mr Lewis explained:212 … I would not be happy with that method. It's not going to get the system to a standard that I would be happy to leave. The other issue in raising it up in that way, that manner as well is it is going to raise it higher than what it would be done if it was cut and pulled up to the correct level of probably 10 to 15 mil above. By increasing the height of it, you are removing the 150 mil that you require from your lowest fixture inside to this point, which would then make this redundant, pushing the sewer internal to the property. And yes, there is no way. Yes. Doing it that way would just be, it would be better off leaving it[.] 568 On the concession of the builder who admits liability for this item of complaint, we find that the incorrect collar was fitted to the disconnector gully outside the house. We find the work is faulty or unsatisfactory. While the owners in closing submissions say that it is common practice for a plumber to quote in the form provided by Mr Lewis, in our view, Mr Lewis' report was very minimal and during the final hearing his response to questions concerning this complaint item tended to be limited and vague. 569 The builder failed to put on alternative evidence, for example DR Plumbing who had provided a quote, but instead sought to rely on its costing expert, Mr Jones (who is not a plumber nor a builder). 570 While we acknowledge that Mr Jones and Mr Mithen did not agree on the scope of works nor the costing, we are of the view that the scope of works recommended by Mr Lewis is to be preferred and we will limit the costing of this complaint item to $1,771.44 ($1,342 plus margin plus GST). 211 ts 53, 23 October 2025. 212 ts 52, 23 October 2025. -- 101 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 102 Complaint item 109.3 - Stack riser behind fridge recess - no inspection opening installed and not compliant with AS3500 571 The owners complain there is no inspection opening installed and saddle junction used. 572 Mr Lewis explained this complaint concerns AS 3500.2-2018. Mr Lewis said that an inspection opening at the base of the stack, which is used to test the drain, is not evident. Further Mr Lewis said a saddle junction was used which does not meet the requirements of AS 3500.2- 2018. 573 Mr Lewis recommends the following scope of works to remedy this complaint:213 (a) remove the section of the stack that includes the saddle junction; (b) install an inspection opening and a compliance junction; (c) reconnect the drainage hoses; and (d) reinstall the acoustic lagging. 574 Mr Lewis' costing for the above scope of works is $934 for three and one hours for a licensed plumber at $220 per hour. 575 In his costings, in addition to Mr Lewis' costing of $934, Mr Mithen allowed four hours for general labour (putting down protection, cleaning up) at $85 per hour plus three hours for a painter to arrive at a total of $2,818 for this complaint item. 576 The builder does not admit liability for this item of complaint. In the Complaint Schedule, the builder states the installation of the inspection opening was installed as discussed orally with the owners and the inspection hatch in the gyprock was not installed as it would look ugly. 577 In his witness statement, Mr Glover made no comment about this complaint item. 578 The builder failed to put on alternative evidence but instead relied on its costing expert, Mr Jones. When asked what his response to Mr Lewis' statement that the scope of works is to remove the section of the stacking that includes the saddle junction, Mr Jones said that he 213 Exhibit 1 at page 224. -- 102 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 103 'absolutely agreed'214 and went on to say that he would not rely on any 'silicon joint for any sort sealant for any sort of plumbing work'.215 Mr Jones' costing to install an inspection opening was for a licensed plumber at $100 per hour for two and one half hours. 579 We do not accept the builder's statement that the installation of the inspection opening was installed as discussed with the owners as it is not supported by any statement in Mr Glover's witness statement. However, we accept that there was no inspection opening installed and that a saddle junction was used in the stack which fails to meet the requirements of AS 3500.2-2018. This is based on Mr Lewis' evidence which is supported by Mr Jones. We find that there is no inspection opening installed and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory work. 580 In our view, the costing provided by Mr Lewis for his scope of works is very generous. We would limit the costing to $100 per hour (plus margin plus GST) as used by Mr Jones for the three and one-half hours stated by Mr Lewis as there is no evidence before the Tribunal that supports the work is of a specialised, rather than of a general plumbing nature. Further, we are of the view that Mr Mithen's costing of $2,818 is excessive and not proportionate to the item of complaint and we would not allow any of the general labour cost as a licensed plumber would put down protection and clean up after the works are completed. The total costing we would allow for this item of complaint is $462. Complaint item 109.4 and 109.5 - Pool pump area - reflux value not installed correctly and grates not installed correctly 581 The owners complain the reflux value adjacent to the inspection shaft has not been installed correctly. The reflux value does not flow in the direction of flow required and appears to be flowing backwards. Further, the owners complain the IS and RV terminations points are inadequate because the DN150 and DN100 stainless steel trap screws are loose, a glue on coupling and screw cap is required. 582 Mr Lewis reports that the plumbing system does not meet the requirements of AS 3500.2-2018 on the Water Corporation's trade waste processes.216 Further, Mr Lewis in giving evidence stated that these complaints are probably the biggest one in terms of severity.217 This is 214 ts 64, 23 October 2025. 215 Ibid. 216 Exhibit 1 at page 215. 217 ts 66, 23 October 2025. -- 103 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 104 because, according to Mr Lewis, the property is not protected in the event of a major issue with the Water Corporation's drains.218 583 The builder admits liability for this complaint item. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder states it proposes to dig up and install a new reflux value by reference to the draft quote dated 9 April 2025 from DR Plumbing Group Pty Ltd. The quote provides:219 109.4 Reflux value has been installed backwards. It will need to be dug up by hand, reinstalled or replaced with the correct direction of flow. 6 hours @ 130ph plus GST Pool equipment would need to be disconnected and removed for this dig, then re-instated after plumbing has been rectified (costs unknown) 109.5 Remove stainless steel trap screws and installed cap and couplings or glue on trap screws 584 It is uncontroversial and we find that the reflux valve adjacent to the inspection shaft has not been installed correctly and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory work. 585 While there was much discussion between Mr Lewis and the costings experts at the final hearing, the costings experts did not agree on the scope of works or the costing. The scope of work proposed by Mr Jones is less onerous.220 For example, in Mr Jones' view the reflux value did not need to be re-installed at 1300 millimetres deep - 300 millimetres below ground is sufficient. Mr Lewis did not contra Mr Jones' regarding the installation depth. However, on balance, we prefer that part of the scope of works recommended by Mr Lewis as follows:221 (a) the reflux value and sewer junction are to be supplied and installed; (b) the area is to be backfilled and compacted; and (c) new caps installed on the inspection shaft and reflux value risers. 586 On the evidence before the Tribunal from Mr Lewis and the quote for the builder from DR Plumbing Pty Ltd, we are persuaded that the 218 Ibid. 219 Exhibit 1 at page 782. 220 ts 69, 23 October 2025. 221 Exhibit 1 at page 224. -- 104 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 105 pool pump equipment is required to be removed in order to carry out the above scope of works. 587 In our view Mr Mithen's costing total costing of $8,969 which includes Mr Lewis' costing of $4,240 for 13 hours of work for a licensed plumber at $230 per hour plus materials of about $900 and $4,729 for a pool equipment company to attend the property to remove the pool pump equipment and to re-instate it and for a general labourer to clean up the area for $4,729 is, in our view, excessive and not proportionate for this item of complaint. 588 In our view, the work to be done by a licensed plumber is not so specialised to justify a charge out rate of $230 per hour. Rather the $130 per hour quoted by DR Plumbing Group Pty Ltd is reasonable (and is higher than the $100 per hour used by Mr Jones in his report). Allowing 13 hours for the work, the plumbing cost is $1,690, and in our view, the costing to remove and re-instate the pump pool equipment is reasonable at $2,364. This gives a total costing for this complaint item of $5,351.28. Complaint item 109.6 - Pool ablution block - Basin waster does not meet AS3500 589 The owners complain the diameter of the drain below ground is too small, inadequate cover, proximity to services (electrical) and insufficient clipping. 590 The builder admits liability for this complaint item. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder states that the owners' plans changed multiple times and that it proposes to rectify this complaint by digging back the main sewer line under the grass by reference to a draft quote dated 9 April 2025 from DR Plumbing Group Pty Ltd. The quote provides:222 109.6 This pipe can be changed to 65mm on the horizontal and run along the wall and connect back into sewer. 2.5hrs @ 130ph plus GST. 591 In addition, the builder states in completing the Complaint Schedule that the builder's employees are to remove and then to reinstate the fencing. 222 Exhibit 1 at page 782. -- 105 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 106 592 Mr Lewis in his report states that the basin waste for the pool room is made of 40 millimetres pipework and is largely installed on top of the ground which does not meet the requirements for the depth of cover, nor the minimum size of drain as provided in AS 3500.2-2018. In short, Mr Lewis explained the drain is undersized. Mr Lewis recommends the following scope of work:223 (a) remove a 300 millimetre strip of aggregate concrete between the end of the pool room and the pool pump area where the sewer shaft is located; (b) remove the concrete from the site and dispose of the concrete; (c) excavate down to the required depth for the drain; (d) install a 65 millimetre drain through to the main sewer; and (e) backfill the area. 593 Mr Deshon opines that access to do remedial work will be difficult as will be getting the concrete in.224 594 The costings experts do not agree on the costing for this item of complaint. Mr Mithen's costing is $12,197. This is based on Mr Lewis' costing of two plumbers for a whole day plus fence removal and reinstatement and carpentry time.225 Mr Jones took the view that it was not necessary to cut the concrete. Rather he gave evidence:226 … I'm running the pipe exactly where it is without concrete cutting can trench in beside it. If you do hit any posts or footings, they can be jackhammered out and rectified afterwards to stop any of the defence posts moving. And then install the new waste pipe back down into the junction that it is without concrete cutting. 595 Mr Deshon said that Mr Jones' view of the scope of works may work but he would have to take a look at it, walk around and work out what it is before he made any call.227 223 Exhibit 1 at page 224. 224 ts 82, 23 October 2025. 225 ts 81, 23 October 2025. 226 ts 89, 23 October 2025. 227 ts 88, 23 October 2025. -- 106 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 107 596 Mr Jones costing is for one plumber for one day plus material of $500 which includes removal of fences when needed and some backfill.228 597 Mr Lewis did not accept the view put forward by Mr Jones. Mr Lewis reiterated:229 … I've come at this from a plumbing aspect. For me, the best solution for the plumbing is to cut the trench, lay the drain 100% correctly through that line without doing the trenching and the jack hammering and leaving it up against things like the new footing . I do hear that there's obviously the concrete cutting and the cost in it, which his what's going to cause the issue to the plan that I've proposed, but to me, that is the primary way to resolve this. … However, on a plumbing front, I don't think you would get the 100% solution that you could get from doing it the proposed way. 598 It is uncontroversial and we find that the drain underground is undersized and therefore represents work that is faulty or unsatisfactory. 599 In our view the scope of works presented by Mr Lewis is not proportionate to the item of complaint. 600 While Mr Lewis put forward what in his view is the 'best solution', Mr Deshon did not reject that works could be done without cutting the concrete. However, Mr Deshon is not plumber. We note the quote from DR Plumbing Group Pty Ltd did not suggest the concrete needed to be cut. We are not persuaded by Mr Lewis' position and would allow costing of $800 for one plumber for the day plus materials $500 plus margin plus GST, or a total of $1,056 for this item of complaint. Complaint item 109.7 - Hot water Unit 1 - excessive time for hot water to reach powder room and upstairs children's bathroom 601 The owners complain the time for hot water to reach the powder room and the upstairs children's bathroom is excessive due to the proximity of the hot water unit. 602 Mr Deshon reports that when he tested how long it took for hot water to flow into the power room tap, located downstairs, in June 2024 it took 1:14 minutes. Mr Deshon opined that the time was long and the amount of dead (cold) water drawn off before hot water flowed through the fixture adversely affected the amenity and water efficiency in the home which is contrary to AS 3500.4-2018 section C4.12.1 and the 228 Ibid. 229 ts 91, 23 October 2025. -- 107 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 108 NCC Volume 3:2018 performance requirement BP 2.6 with the result that the work was not completed in a proper and proficient manner. 603 Mr Deshon acknowledges that there is no Australian or industry standard as to the amount of time that is required for hot water to be delivered and for good amenity he would want hot water within 20 seconds.230 Mr Deshon accepted that in warmer months the starting temperature of the water would be higher, however, in his view it would probably still take the same amount of time for water with a temperature of 50 degrees to come through.231 604 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:232 (a) engage a suitably qualified plumber to undertake testing and inspection of the hot water system and diagnose what is causing the extended time it takes to flow through fixtures; (b) modify the hot water system so that it operates in accordance with AS 3500.4-2018 and the NCC Volume 3 BP2.6. This may require relocation of one of the hot water units to the northern side of the house; and (c) make good any affected surfaces. 605 The builder does not admit liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder states it is a design fault and the plumber provided solutions to the owners at handover and the owners refused the relocation. 606 Mr Glover stated in his witness statement:233 128. At the commencement of construction, I had a conversation with Mr and Mrs Sweetman and my plumber, Mr Peter Mais of Total Plumbing & Excavations. In that conversation, the location of the hot water units was discussed, Mr and Mrs Sweetman told me that they wanted both hot water units on the same side of the dwelling. Mr Mais said words to the effect that he agreed to the proposal to install 2 hot water units in the same location that they wanted. 129. After Mr and Mrs Sweetman moved into the dwelling on the Site and the issue of the long time to wait for hot water became known, 230 ts 97 to 98, 23 October 2025. 231 Ibid. 232 Exhibit 1 at page 147. 233 Exhibit 1 at pages 954 to 955. -- 108 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 109 Mr Mais and I suggested to move one of the hot water units to the other side of the house outside of the kitchen at a meeting in January 2023. 130. I told Mr and Mrs Sweetman that it would be more functional for other hot water unit to be located outside of the kitchen. My plumber, Mr Mais, said words to the effect that he agreed with what I had said. 131. Mr and Mrs rejected the proposal for the two hot water units to be located in different places, and I proceeded as Mr and Mrs Sweetman had requested. I recall that the proposal to locate one of the hot water units outside of the kitchen window was objected to because Mr and Mrs Sweetman said that they intended to park a future boat in that location. 607 In contrast, Mr Sweetman states the design of the house was prepared by the builder using the services of John Chisolm of Chisolm Design.234 608 Mr Deshon concedes that he only tested one tap, a flix mixer, and that was in the powder room.235 However, the owners refute that it is necessary for them to put on evidence of the time taken for hot water to arrive at every tap in the home.236 609 Mr Lewis recommended the following scope of works comprised of a ring-line system:237 So the solution that I proposed was to install two circulating pumps on both of the hot water systems. Essentially, a circulating pump works pumps on both of the hot water systems. Essentially, a circulating pump works pumps the hot water in a ring from the hot water unit around the hot water lines through the property back to the hot water unit. To do this [you] need to get a return line from the very end of the hot water pipe work back to the hot water units. So my solution is, do that twice, and then it would essentially mean that anytime a tap is used throughout the property they have pumped hot water through the entire system which will get it down to a number of seconds at every tap throughout the house. One of the issues with this is it's a bit destructive in terms of gaining access to the water lines as they are all in ceiling spaces and floor, I have a bit of a blank there, slab voids and like wall cavities and things like that so to gain access to certain areas it may result in damage to tiling, damage 234 Exhibit 1 at page 448. 235 ts 111, 23 October 2025. 236 Closing written submissions filed by the applicants on 27 January 2026 at page 83. 237 ts 94, 23 October 2025. -- 109 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 110 to plaster, plus have an external copper pipe mounted on the rear of the property[.] 610 When questioned, Mr Lewis gave oral evidence that to undertake Mr Deshon's scope of work which includes the relocation of one of the hot water units to the northern side of the house would cost about $3,500 provided there is no damage to the hot water system in moving it.238 611 The costings experts do not agree on the costing for this item of complaint. 612 Mr Jones' position is that there is no determinant scope of work of what needs to be done and therefore he cannot provide a costing of the work.239 Mr Jones is concerned that Mr Deshon and Mr Lewis are comparing the time taken to get hot water from a shower head (higher volume of water) to a flick mixer tap (restricted volume of water) which, in his view, are not comparable. 613 Mr Mithen's costing is $11,299 which includes $6,720 for Mr Lewis' proposed scope of works which includes the ring-line system.240 614 The evidence before the Tribunal as to installation of the two hot water units is in conflict. However, it is not necessary for us to resolve this conflict because this item of complaint concerns the amount of time it takes for hot water to reach the powder room and the upstairs children's bathroom. 615 In our view, while the builder failed to put on evidence, we accept Mr Deshon's evidence that there is no Australian or industry standard that specifies the time period required for hot water to be delivered to a tap. Because of this, we are not persuaded that the builder's work was not proper or proficient or is faulty or unsatisfactory. We therefore decline to make any order for this item of complaint. Complaint item 109.8 - Downstairs guest room shower 616 The owners complain that there is rising damp into the adjacent toilet that is likely from inadequate sealing between the grate and the waste pipe and/or the waterproof membrane underneath the tiling is failing. 238 ts 110, 23 October 2025. 239 ts 111, 23 October 2025. 240 ts 94 to 96, 23 October 2025. -- 110 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 111 617 This item of complaint is dealt with under complaint item 3 (see above at [297] to [309]). Complaint item 109.10a - Powder room 618 The owners' complaint that the hot water takes excessive time to reach temperature. 619 This item of complaint is dealt with under complaint item 109.07 (see above at [601] to [615]). Complaint item 109.10b - Powder room 620 The owners complain the floor waste is not recessed into the concrete slab. 621 This item of complaint is dealt with under complaint item 70 (see above at [420] to [432]). Complaint item 109.11 - Upstairs bathroom (children) basin - slow draining 622 The owners complain there is inadequate drain design and that the fixture discharge waste pipes are constantly holding water due to design flaw causing air locks under hydraulic load and that this may cause issues with future blockages. 623 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder proposes to cut the ceiling below and adjust two pipes and reinstate the scullery ceiling and paint. To support these works, the builder refers to quote 580 dated 9 April 2025 from Paul Toyne, however, that quote does not provide any details for this complaint item. The builder also refers to the quote from Top Teng Walls & Ceilings dated 15 April 2025 but that quote also does not provide any details for this complaint item. Finally, the builder refers to quote QU-058 from DR Plumbing dated 9 April 2025 for $780 (six hours work) to:241 #109.11 Needs further investigation, if we can see how the drainage has been designed from underneath we can see what is causing the issue. Possibly building rubble/screed is causing water to sit high and affecting the drainage, if not this then possibly part of the drain underneath gets cut out and reconfigured. 241 Exhibit 1 at pages 782 to 783. -- 111 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 112 Could possibly send a camera through a small hole underneath or alternatively cut a path of ceiling underneath and assess from there. If drainage needs replacing, an estimated time of 6hrs would cover this work providing the builder cuts hole in gyprock and patches and paints after works completed. 624 Mr Deshon gave evidence that the fixtures are not functioning properly because the basin is not draining fast enough.242 However, Mr Deshon accepts that there is no Australian Standard about how quickly a bath or sink has to discharge water.243 Further, Mr Deshon accepts that until an invasive inspection is done, he cannot confirm what is defective.244 625 Mr Lewis reports that the drain design does not comply with AS 3500.2-2018. Mr Lewis explained:245 So in the upstairs left-hand bathroom, as you enter there is a floor waste gully. The floor waster gully is holding the sewer at the incorrect level. By holding the sewer at the incorrect level, the sewer cannot self-cleanse. This causes gurgling, which is essentially an air locking in drainage systems. This causes consistent blockages and over time will cause stenches as the sewer is not self-cleansing itself and removing to where it needs to. The exact method of rectification is a bit difficult here because it's under slung and hidden by ceiling. So it is incredibly difficult to locate whether we're talking about two basin wastes that need to be adjusted to get them to the correct height or if we're talking the entire under-strung drainage for that bathroom. … This is a basis waste entering the side of a pipe that then drops down and then enters the main sewer. That should be completely clear with no sign of the water level. (indistinct) the water level is through that pipe, not below it. So there's about 40 mil of incorrect fall in the drainage, whether that is just a one bathroom gully or there is a drainage issue for the entire room. We are unsure as exploratory work was needed, which involved removing the ceiling. However, in the same room, the bath - if you leave the tap on and the plug open, it fills up. That's how slow it's draining, like it's near on not draining, which that also drains into the same area. So that would suggest that there is further 242 ts 120, 23 October 2025. 243 ts 119, 23 October 2025. 244 ts 120, 23 October 2025. 245 ts 113 to 114, 23 October 2025. -- 112 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 113 plumbing drainage issues than just the issue with just the basins that are visible here. 626 However, Mr Lewis acknowledged in response to the question if there is a cheaper, lesser fix that is available:246 There is a potential that it is just an issue with basin wastes and the bath waste that go into here. However, without going in there, I don't know if that is correct. … So yeah, destructive work - sorry without gaining access to the area. I don't' know if that is correct. However, it is plausible that the issue is isolated in one section, and we might be looking at a $200 material fix and by the time the exploratory work and the repair's done, a day's labour. … So I understand it's a bit confusing, but it's very hard to give a straightforward answer on something that I'm not 100% sure what the exact issue it. 627 Mr Lewis referred to the Smart Plumbing No probs report as the scope of works as follows:247 Cost estimate for exploratory works $1,360 Ex GST or Cost estimate to modify and reinstall plumbing $5,820 ex GST. 628 Mr Lewis explained the costing as follows:248 To rectify it, as I said, it is an open up and see what the exact issue is. Hence, the two costs. The second cost of 5820 is to redo the entire under slung drainage for that area, not just what may be smaller. 629 Mr Deshon opined:249 … I think definitely removing the ceiling and the scullery, and then beyond that, and until you know what the problem is, it's really hard to quantify. But I think it would be removing the scullery ceiling, modifying the pipe work, as it has been said, and then reinstating the ceiling at the minimum. We don't know how far, you don't know how far down the line the pipes that are near the pipes aren't graded properly, 246 ts 115 to 116, 23 October 2025. 247 Exhibit 1 at page 226. 248 ts 114, 23 October 2025. 249 ts 117, 23 October 2025. -- 113 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 114 so it is quite an unknown. I can't say much more than that, but definitely remove the ceiling and scullery, definitely need to put that back, and some plumbing works while it is down. 630 Mr Jones was not able to provide a costing because 'there's too many variables'.250 Mr Jones agreed:251 … It could be as simple as a blockage somewhere, since the house has been in use for many years. It could be an under functioning waste, a gully, it could be an airlock somewhere, it could be levels in piping, it could be anything. So to say a price to a maybe, I can't give a price to it. 631 The builder asserts that the owners had the opportunity at the time of preparing and compiling their reports for the purposes of bringing this proceeding to conduct invasive inspections sufficient to allay the owners to confirm the precise defect in circumstances where the owners prefer a monetary order from the Tribunal.252 632 The owners challenge the builder's position. They say, while they accept there is a degree of uncertainty in the remedial works likely to be involved, that does not support the finding that they have not proved this item of complaint and where destructive works are involved it is reasonable for the owners to present the claim on the best available evidence from an expert plumber.253 633 We find that the basin is slow draining and contrary to AS 3500.2- 2018 and therefore represents faulty or unsatisfactory building work. 634 The owners' experts all agree that the scope of the works is unclear as the cause for the basin slow draining is unknown, or in the words of Mr Lewis - it is an open up and see what the exact issue is. Because of this, in our view, it would be unreasonable to cost this item of complaint for anything more than for what Mr Lewis described as exploratory works. We therefore limit the costing for this item of complaint at $1,360 (plus margin and GST) or a costing of $1,795.20 based on Mr Lewis' reference to Smart Plumbing No Probs written report dated 17 March 2025. 250 ts 121, 23 October 2025. 251 Ibid. 252 Respondent's closing written submissions filed 27 January 2026 at page 54. 253 Applicants' closing written submissions filed 27 January 2026 at page 86 to 87. -- 114 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 115 Complaint item 109.12 - Upstairs bathroom - bath 635 The owners complain that the upstairs bathroom bath is slow to drain which appears to be from air locking. 636 This item of complaint is dealt with under complaint item 109.11 (see above at [622] to [634]). Complaint item 109.13 - Upstairs bathroom - shower 637 The owners' complaint the upstairs bathroom shower is slow draining which is caused by the design of the grate. 638 This item of complaint is dealt with under complaint item 109.11 (see above at [622] to [634]). Complaint item 109.14 - Master en-suite bath 639 The owners complain the bath in the master en-suite is slow to drain. 640 This item of complaint is dealt with under complaint item 109.11 (see above at [622] to [634]). Complaint item 110 - Upstairs hallway and bathroom - flickering lights 641 The owners complain there is intermittent flickering of the down lights in the upstairs bathroom and hallway outside the bathroom door. 642 Mr Deshon reports the flickering lights is likely due to a defective electrical circuit rather than a faulty light fixture and such flickering lighting represents a failure to meet AS 3000-2018 section 1.7.1(a) because the circuit does not operate in a reliable manner and therefore represents work not completed in a proper and proficient manner. 643 Mr Deshon recommends the following scope of work:254 (a) engage a suitably qualified electrician to undertake an inspection of the electrical work to diagnose the cause of the flickering lights; (b) modify or remediate the installation so that it complies with AS 3000-2018 and operates reliably without flickering; and (c) make good all affected surfaces. 254 Exhibit 1 at page 193. -- 115 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 116 644 The builder admits liability for this item of complaint. In completing the Complaint Schedule, the builder proposes to undertake further investigation as it is most likely a loose terminal by reference to an undated statement from Dom Foster of Foster Electrical Pty Ltd with a costing of $690 plus GST. 645 By reference to the Crown Electrical Service WA quote # 4185 dated 19 March 2025, Mr Mithen's costing is $1,333 which includes three hours labour at $170 per hour plus materials of $500. 646 Mr Jones' costing for this item of complaint is $504.90 for one half day's work for a skilled labourer (rather than a licensed electrician). 647 It is uncontroversial and we find that there is intermittent flickering of the down lights in the upstairs bathroom and hallway outside the bathroom door and therefore represents work that is faulty or unsatisfactory. 648 We accept the scope of works recommended by Mr Deshon. In respect of costings, we do not accept Mr Jones' costing because he did not cost for a licensed electrician. In regards to Mr Mithen's costing we do not accept the costing of materials of $500 as no explanation was given by Mr Mithen as to the materials required. Consequently, we adjust Mr Mithen's costing downwards by $500 to $833. We accept $833 as reasonable and proportionate costing for this item of complaint. Complaint item 111 - Main bedroom - door bolt not installed properly 649 The owners complain that the locking bolt hardware is not installed properly. 650 This item of complaint is dealt with under complaint item 78 (see above at [114] to [118]). Summary of findings - items of complaint and costings. 651 In summary: (a) we find the following items of complaint require remedial works (with the scope of work as set out above in these reasons for decision): 35, 36, 38, 41, 51, 52, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 64, 65, 67, 69, 71, 73, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85, 86, 88, 90, 92, 103, 104, 106, 108, 109.13a, 109.15, 109.16; -- 116 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 117 39, 53, 63, 89, 112; 1, 3, 5 to 34, 37, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 to 50, 68, 70, 74, 76. 77, 84, 87, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 109.1, 109.2, 109.3, 109.4 to 109.5, 109.6, 109.8, 109.10a, 109.10b, 109.11, 109.12, 109.13. 109.14, 110, 111; (b) the costing (including margin of 20% and GST of 10%) for the above items of complaint totals $177,201.55 ($21,437.34 + $17,954.54 + $137,809.67); (c) we decline to make any order for the following items of complaint: 54, 55, 62, 66; 40, 72, 75, 83, 109.7; and (d) we give leave to the owners to withdraw the following items of complaint: 109.1, 109.9, 109.10. 652 Before considering what order - a monetary order or a remedial works order - to make we turn to consider the other costs claimed by the owners. There are three categories of other costs claimed and they include a margin of 20% and GST of 10%. The three categories of other costs are: • general overheads totalling $13,160; • supervision costs totalling $38,702; and • accommodation and living away from home costs for eight weeks totalling $36,400. Other costs claimed General overheads 653 In their closing written submissions, the owners claim general overhead costs for rubbish bins (five bins at $350 per bin or a total of $1,750), cleaner on completion (two days for two cleaners at $85 per hour for $2,720), protection whilst works are underway ($3,000) and general access equipment ($2,500) totalling $13,160 (inclusive of a 20% margin and 10% GST) as costed by Mr Mithen. -- 117 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 118 654 Mr Mithen explained that at completion of all the remedial works, the protection is taken up and you get what is referred to as a 'white cloth cleaners in to do a builder's clean'.255 Mr Mithen explained:256 There's a large volume of work to do. Any project, you would have an element of cleaning what - proper cleaning at the end, not - not clean up as you go, the proper cleaning. Wiping the walls down, wiping the floors down, just general - general, well specific cleaning. The works are a finished house, we can put protection down everywhere that we can, but it's still going to cause some element of final vacuuming and just wiping down. 655 The builder challenged Mr Mithen's costing for cleaning of $3,590 asking if 'what you're wiping' is 'what you have already - what has already been cleaned'. In response Mr Mithen said:257 Any construction project has cleaning done during the project, and there's cleaners that come in at the end to do a clean that a client - to get the place up to a standard that the client can move back in. So that's - that's pretty common, and this is a construction project that is working in every part of the house, every room has work in it. 656 Mr Deshon explained it this way:258 [I]f you can image a bunch of trade coming through, they will walk dirt all through the house, they will mess up the toilets, they will mess up the - they will be washing stuff, their paintbrushes in the sink, they just, they can't - a tradesman can't walk in the house without putting his hand on the hallway wall - it's just, they're just messy buggers to have in your house, and if you've got that, if you've got 20-odd tradies coming through, the place will be a mess[.] 657 Further, Mr Deson said:259 Yes, the work areas, the work areas are costed to be cleaned, the work areas are cleaned. But not, not the tradies coming in, dumping their bags down the front door, tracking their muddy boots through there - that, that's the builder's clean, that's the portion of cleaning. 658 The owners submit that it is reasonable for an amount to be allowed for general overhead costs which have not been included with the individual item of complaint. 255 ts 601, 1 December 2025. 256 ts 601 to 602, 1 December 2025. 257 ts 606, 1 December 2025. 258 ts 607, 1 December 2025. 259 ts 606, 1 December 2025. -- 118 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 119 659 The builder disputes this item of costing for 'general overheads' for the following reasons.260 660 First, as Mr Mithen accepts that he had costed for each trade to clean as they perform the remedial work,261 the builder disputes that the owners have established through the evidence of Mr Mithen as to why a further clean would be necessary in circumstances where tradesmen were cleaning as they went. 661 Second, with regards to the rubbish bins, the builder asserts Mr Mithen's estimate of one bin for every week and a half,262 is unreliable in circumstances where it has not been linked back to the precise remedial works proposed by Mr Deshon. 662 Third in regards to general access equipment, the builder put to Mr Mithen that the provision for general access equipment was redundant where access requirement had been costed. The builder submits that Mr Mithen could not identify any specific instance requiring general access assistance which would not be provided by the relevant tradesman carrying out the remedial works outside. Further, the builder submits that Mr Mithen's response that the general access equipment allowance could be removed and put back into the trades (which we understand to mean back into the item of complaint), is unsatisfactory as tradesmen do not charge for the use of their ladders, trestles and other non-consumable equipment that was needed to carry out their specific remedial work. 663 In summary, the builder submits that no provision should be allowed for this category of general overheads in considering any monetary order under s 36(1) of the BSCRA Act. 664 In order for the remedial works to be completed, which, from our findings as set out earlier in these reasons, will be numerous and for some complaint items, such as the flooring complaint item, will require extensive remedial work, in our view it is appropriate to include an amount for rubbish bins. We do not accept the builder's assertion that the owners' estimate of one bin for every week and a half is unreliable where the requirement for the rubbish bin has not been linked back to particular remedial works. In our view, while we accept that the costing for each item of complaint does not expressly include an amount for 260 Respondent's closing written submissions filed on 27 January 2026 at pages 57 to 59. 261 ts 607 to 608, 1 December 2025. 262 ts 611, 1 December 2025. -- 119 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 120 rubbish removal, it is obvious that as a result of the remedial work required in this case that there will be much rubbish left at the property such as construction debris (for example, off-cuts and broken pieces of materials), packaging (for example carboard and plastic wrapping) and surplus materials (for example paint and timber) which must be removed. We conclude that the owners' claim for five rubbish bins (at $350 per bin), while it is a general estimate, in the circumstances of this case we find it a reasonable cost. 665 In regards to the claim of $2,720 for cleaning on completion of the remedial works, we note that most of the scope of work recommended by Mr Deshon required all affected surfaces to be made good. Mr Jones in his costings report allowed a lump sum amount of $550 for cleaning. It is not clear if this was for cleaning as the remedial work was being done, or whether this was for cleaning on completion of all the remedial works. Mr Mithen in his costings report specifically allowed cleaning in relation to complaint items 17 (one hour for $85), 23 (two hours for $170), 24 (one hour for $85), 34 (two hours or $170), 58 (16 hours for $1,360), 59 (two hours for $170) and 71 (4 hours for $240). For complaint item 58 the cleaning required was for the cleaning of blemishes on the laundry cabinet doors. In giving evidence, Mr Mithen stated that he included in his costings the cost for each trade to clean as they performed the remedial works.263 The joint costing expert report is less clear. Apart from failing to state whether the costing included a margin and GST, which had to be clarified at the final hearing, the joint costing expert report does not address the other costs claimed by the owners even though Mr Mithen's costing report sets these costs out. 666 It is trite that the quality and presentation of expert evidence is important in assisting the Tribunal to resolve disputes correctly, quickly and with minimum costs to the parties. It is expected that, consistently with their obligations to the Tribunal, that experts will make a genuine attempt to identify the matters of agreement between them and to clearly state their respective reasons for any disagreement. It is unhelpful that Mr Mithen and Mr Jones did not provide any consideration or comment on the costing for these other costs in their joint expert report and if they differed to state their respective reasons for any disagreement. Unfortunately, this was left to the parties through their respective closing written submissions. 263 ts 607 to 608, 1 December 2025. -- 120 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 121 667 In conclusion, in our view, the owners have failed to establish their claim of $2,720 for cleaning on completion of all the remedial works when Mr Mithen's evidence is that he costed for each trade to clean as they performed the remedial works in addition to the above specified items of complaint which provide for 28 hours (or three and one half days) for cleaning. 668 While the owners' state the claim for protection ($3,000) and access equipment ($2,500) was not claimed against the specific items of complaint, we find these costs are not reasonable in circumstances where the owners failed to specify the nature and type of protection and access equipment required. In our view, the amounts claimed by the owners are at best an estimate for something that may be needed in undertaking remedial works. It is incumbent on the party seeking a monetary order (rather than a remedial works order), in this case the owners, to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. 669 In conclusion, in the category of general overheads, in the circumstances of this case, we find that only the claim for rubbish bins for $1,750 is made out. Site supervision and general labour 670 The owners claim the additional cost of site supervision (eight weeks at $135 per hour at 60% totalling $25,920) and general labour (five days or 40 hours at $85 per hour totalling $3,400) as costed by Mr Mithen totalling $38,702. The owners say there is no 'doubling up' by reason of the 20% applied to the costing for each item of complaint and to the claim for site supervision and general labour. 671 The owners proposed program for the remedial works includes four weeks' upfront planning/procurement/administration for which they say no cost allowance has been made. According to the owners, the 20% margin would cover the administration/procurement for the initial four weeks plus the offsite administration/management required during the project as well. Further, the owners say it the reasonable to add the site supervision cost as there will be approximately 15 or so trades to contract with and to manage throughout the process, including progress claims and possible variations as the remedial works proceed.264 672 Mr Mithen explained:265 264 Applicants' closing submissions filed on 27 January 2026 at page 92. 265 ts 616, 1 December 2025. -- 121 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 122 If you're trying to deliver this work without a builder, it just won't happen. And a builder would put a site supervisor there to make it happen. And there would be, there's an element of general labour across the project. That's it, there's many, many items. They're just not going to come together by themselves[.] 673 The builder made no closing written submission about the site supervision and labour cost. It is not clear to us if this is simply an omission on the part of the builder, or whether the builder objects to or concedes these costs. We note Mr Jones' in his costing report allowed for two weeks' supervision at $750 per week to undertake remedial works. At the highest charge out rate of $100 per hour provided for by Mr Jones in his report, this would equate to seven and one-half hours. In our view, Mr Jones' costing is unrealistic in view of the number of items of complaint and the extent of remedial work required for some items of complaint, such as the flooring complaint. We have not considered this unrealistic $750 per week site supervision cost any further. 674 In our view, site supervision may be part of a monetary order under s 36(1)(b) of the BSCRA Act if it is a reasonable and necessary cost associated with remedying defective work. In our view, the section properly construed provides for the payment of costs associated with having someone else remedy the work. Such costs may include site supervision directly required to ensure the rectification work is carried out correctly, safely and in accordance with, for example, the required Australian standards, the NCC and the Guide. 675 We stress that the cost claimed for site supervision must be reasonable, that is consistent with what a competent site supervisor would charge and must be necessary and proportionate to the remedial works to be completed. Further, clear evidence setting out the reasonable scope of supervision and reasonable rectification timeline must support the cost claimed. 676 We accept the closing written submission of the builder that the duration of the remedial works cannot be determined, until the extent of the builder's liability is determined. This is supported by Mr Deshon, who accepts that the scope of works has to be 'fine-tuned' depending on the who is engaged to carry out the remedial work.266 677 Because of this, we will hear from the parties as to what is the reasonable duration of time (days/hours) for a site supervisor to 266 ts 599, 1 December 2025. -- 122 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 123 reasonably supervise the scope of works that we accepted for items of complaint as set out earlier in these reasons. For the avoidance of doubt, to the extent that the site supervision is for any upgrade, variation from our accepted scope of works as set out earlier in these reasons or for any other unrelated construction, hours to supervise the other works must be excluded. 678 We will then use that duration (days/hours) if agreed by the parties, otherwise we will determine what is a reasonable duration (days/hours) after considering the parties' evidence and submissions and multiply that by $135 per hour, which we find to be a reasonable hourly rate to undertake site supervision, to arrive at a final costing for site supervision for this matter. 679 Finally, in regards to the claim for general labour ($3,400), apart from stating it is for five days or 40 hours at $85 per hour, there is no clear evidence as to the scope of what the general labour is for. In our view, at best, the general labour is an estimate of what may be required. We note that Mr Mithen in his costings schedule allowed for general labour in regards to complaint item 44 (12 hours at $85 per hour), 79 (16 hours at $85 per hour), 93 (6 hours at $85 per hour) 109.3 (4 hours at $85 per hour), 109.4 (8 hours at $85 per hour) and 109.6 (16 hours at $85 per hour) or a total of 62 hours for general labour. In conclusion, based on the lack of evidence before the Tribunal, we decline to allow any costing for general labour in this matter. Accommodation and living away from home allowance 680 The owners say they will need to move out of the property while the remedial works, in particular the flooring remedial works, are undertaken. They claim 56 nights at $500 per night for Airbnb accommodation.267 The 56 nights, or eight week time frame, is supported by Mr Deshon who opined:268 Once we have the agreed items, then we can fine-tune it. But eight weeks is a good period of time to do it. When - whoever's undertaking the works will write their program. Things like when we're talking about painting, if you've got one person there, or two people there for two hours, that will speed things up if you put in two blokes. It's just - there's ways you can manage the job so that you can make it faster. This is a good timeframe. Eight weeks would be enough time to do the work, provided it's well managed. 267 Ibid at page 93. 268 ts 599, 1 December 2025. -- 123 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 124 681 The builder challenges whether the owners are required to move out of the property while the remedial works are carried out. This is on the basis that Mr Mithen in his report, states:269 We have considered that if all items on the list of complaints were to be rectified, the homeowner would be best to move out for an 8 week timeframe to allow a clear run for all subtrades to do their works. (Added emphasis) 682 Further, the builder submits that there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the remedial works render the property uninhabitable or that as a matter of safety the owners would be forced to relocate from the property in order to avoid injury to health. In addition, while the builder appreciates that remedial works will be disruptive to the owners' routine, that in itself is not the baseline from which claims for remedial works are to be assessed, as all forms of remedial works generally involve some level of disruption to the daily routine of occupants of the dwelling being repaired. In this regard, the builder says no evidence was presented that the owners would be present at the property during normal business hours and as remedial work is not reasonably undertaken at all hours of the day and night, it is likely that the owners and their children would not be present at the property for the majority of the day whilst remedial works are carried out.270 683 The builder submits that it would be unreasonable for the Tribunal to price the cost of alternative accommodation on the basis of Airbnb as opposed to other appropriate short-term rental or stay accommodation, such as serviced apartments or similar.271 However, the builder has not put on any alternate accommodation costings. 684 The builder submits that the owners have failed to properly substantiate by reference to either an underlying need or the cost of the accommodation and on that basis the Tribunal should dismiss it. 685 As already stated, but is repeated here, we accept that the reasonable duration (days/hours) of the supervision of the remedial works is yet to be determined. 686 In this case, the owners claim $500 per night for eight weeks and provided the following details of three Airbnb hosted properties from 269 Exhibit 1 at page 250. 270 Respondent's closing written submissions filed on 27 January 2026 at pages 60 to 61. 271 Respondent's closing written submissions filed on 27 January 2026 at page 63. -- 124 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 125 what appears to be an internet search (undated and details of the website not provided) in support of their claim:272 • 'Mid Century Magic in Ardross' - entire home - 8 guests - 4 bedrooms - 5 beds - 2.5 baths. Equipped for long stays - kitchen, washing machine, pool, dedicated workspace, free parking, exterior security camera on property, air conditioning, TV, Wi-Fi and heating included. Check in 1 March - check out 29 March for 5 guests $18,137.14 monthly (or about $605 per night based on 30 nights for the month); • 'Entire home in Booragoon' - entire home - 10 guests - 5 bedrooms - 6 beds - 2 baths. Equipped for long stays - kitchen, washing machine, free parking and air conditioning. Check in 1 March 2026 and check out 2 April 2026 for 5 guests $13,779.45 monthly (or about $459 per night based on 30 nights for the month); and • 'Family friendly Como delight' - 10 minutes from Perth CBD - entire home - 8 guests - 4 bedrooms - 4 beds - 3.5 baths. Equipped for long stays - kitchen, washing machine, dryer, dedicated workspace, TV, exterior security cameras on property and free parking included. Check in 1 March 2026 - check out 29 March 2026 for 5 guests $16,078.05 monthly (or about $536 per night based on 30 nights for the month). 687 In our view an amount may be ordered by the Tribunal for accommodation costs in circumstances where it is necessary for the owners (and their children) to relocate in order for the remedial works to be carried out. Clear evidence, for example from an expert building witness, in support of the requirement for the relocation and the period of time (days/hours) of the relocation is required. Further, the claim for accommodation costs must align with what is reasonable in all of the circumstances of the case. For example, the cost of housing that is similar to that of the owners and in a location close enough to work, school or the property may be reasonable. 688 It appears to us from Mr Mithen's and Mr Deshon's evidence (see above at [680] to [681]) that eight weeks would be a 'good time frame' to do all the remedial work. However, neither Mr Mithen nor Mr Deshon explain that it is necessary or required that the owners and their children relocate for eight weeks in order for all the remedial work 272 Exhibit 5. -- 125 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 126 to be completed. Reflecting back on the items of complaint and our finding as to the scope of works, in our respectful view, we do not accept that it is necessary to relocate the owners and their children to complete all of the remedial work. For example, it is not necessary for the owners to relocate in order for remedial work to be done in respect of complaint item 89 (which concerns the Pool toilet block building where there is a hole in the wall). Having said that, we accept that it may be necessary to relocate the owners and their children in order for some of the items of complaint to be remedied. 689 We will hear from the parties as to the reasonable duration (days/hours) that the owners and their children are required to vacate the property in order for remedial work to be done for specified items of complaint. 690 Once we hear submissions from the parties, we will determine what amount, if any, is to be allowed in relation to the accommodation costs claimed by the owners. 691 Finally, the owners claim a living away from home allowance of $150 per day for the eight weeks. This totals $8,400. 692 When challenged what the living away from home allowance was for, Mr Mithen explained it the cost for incidentals when away from home including goods and groceries, cutlery and an inconvenience factor.273 693 The builder submits that the owners through Mr Mithen was unable to satisfactorily explain why a living from home allowance would be necessary in circumstances where the owners could take their belongings, including cutlery and foodstuff with them and then supplement as necessary from the same supermarkets that they may usually attend to replenish foodstuffs in their own dwelling and consequently should be dismissed. 694 We find the owners have failed to provide clear evidence to support their claim for a living away from home allowance. 695 In the circumstances of this case, where each of the three Airbnb hosted properties put forward by the owners is the entire home (see above at [686], in our view, the owners can plan to take items such as cutlery, foodstuff and other belongings for the duration of their relocation. 273 ts 617 to 619, 1 December 2025. -- 126 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 127 Consequently, in our view, the claim for a living away from home allowance in this case is unreasonable and we would not allow any amount for this item of cost. 696 In summary, we would allow the cost of the bins ($1,750) and we will hear from the parties as to the reasonable duration (days/hours) for supervision of the remedial works and the reasonable duration (hours/days) for the owners and their children to vacate the property in order for remedial work to be done for specified items of complaint. We turn finally to consider whether to exercise the Tribunal's powers to make a works order or a monetary order. Should the Tribunal make a remedial works order or a monetary order? 697 The right to a building remedy order (BRO) arises out of defects in the work subject to the regulated building service. 698 Earlier, we made the finding that the work the subject of many complaint items was not carried out in a proper and proficient manner or is faulty or unsatisfactory and we exercised the discretion of the Tribunal under s 38(1) of the BSCRA Act to make a BRO in respect of those complaint items (see above at [651]). 699 Having exercised the Tribunal's discretion under s 38(1) of the BSCRA Act to make a BRO, we now have to consider whether or not to exercise the Tribunal's discretion under s 36(1) of the BSCRA Act to make a particular order in the form of s 36(1)(a), (b) or (c) as follows: (1) A building remedy order consists of one of the following - (a) an order that a person who carried out a regulated building service remedy the building service as specified in the order; (b) an order that a person who carried out a regulated building service pay to an aggrieved person such costs of remedying the building service as the Building Commissioner or State Administrative Tribunal, as the case requires, considers reasonable and specifies in the order; (c) an order that a person who carried out a regulated building service pay to an aggrieved person a sum of money specified in the order to compensate the aggrieved person for the failure to carry out the building service in a proper and proficient manner or for faulty or unsatisfactory building work. -- 127 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 128 700 The nature of the BRO is an important consideration. 701 As explained in Brooks and Gransden Building Company Pty Ltd [No 2] [2021] WASAT 86 at [15] to [18], the reason for this is because there is significant difference between a BRO made under s 36(1)(a) and that made under s 36(1)(b) or s 36(1)(c) of the BSCRA Act. The difference is that there are advantages to the owners if the Tribunal makes an order under s 36(1)(a) which are not available under s 36(1)(b) or s 36(1)(c). The advantages include that an order under s 36(1)(a) provides the owners with the added protection that if the remedial work is not performed, or is performed in a faulty or unsatisfactory manner, the owners may seek an order under s 51 of the BSCRA Act which effectively allows for the 'conversion' of the order requiring remedial work to be performed to a monetary order reflecting the costs of a third party performing that work. A further advantage of an order under s 36(1)(a) is that any ambiguity which may arise in relation to the issue of liability if the remedial work is itself faulty or unsatisfactory is avoided. Finally, an order under s 36(1)(a) may be advantageous because third party contractors are often reluctant to perform remedial works in respect of another builder's underlying work. 702 It is therefore often difficult to obtain reliable evidence on the costing of remedial work on a third party basis, and if that costing is provided by an independent expert, the expert is not available to do the remedial work (see Sanders and Gemmill Homes Pty Ltd [2017] WASAT 41 (Sanders and Gemmill) at [30] to [33]). There is also an advantage to the builder if the Tribunal makes an order under s 36(1)(a) which is not available under s 36(1)(b) and 36(1)(c) of the BSCRA Act. The builder can usually carry out remedial work at a cost less than would be charged by a third-party contractor who would usually charge a premium for doing that work (see Nelson v Mardesic (1998) 22 SR (WA) 42 at [46]. Principles in deciding whether to make a remedial works order or a monetary order 703 We are guided by the principles (not exhaustive) set out in Trengove and Celebration Nominees Pty Ltd [2012] WASAT 65; (2012) 80 SR (WA) 77 as set out in Gemmill Homes Pty Ltd v Sanders [2018] WASC 179 (Gemmill Homes) at [33] as follows: (a) At the heart of the issue as to what order is appropriate is the question as to whether the relationship between the parties has irretrievably broken down. The fact that it is the builder asserting -- 128 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 129 that the relationship has broken down does not matter. The principles equally apply whether it is a builder or an owner making the assertion. This is an important consideration for a number of obvious reasons, including the primary one, namely, to ensure some finality in litigation. If the Tribunal were to order remedial work in circumstances where the relationship between the parties has irretrievably broken down, it is likely not to result in finality of the disputes arising between those parties. (b) The Tribunal looks to the relationship between the parties and whether the owner has lost confidence in the builder, the willingness or otherwise of the builder to perform remedial works, whether it has performed remedial works which have been unsatisfactory, whether the builder has been refused access, and whether, for example, the extent of the remedial work itself evidences perhaps a lack of competence or ability on the part of the builder which justifies the owner losing confidence in the builder's ability. 704 In addition, following Gemmill Homes at [131] and [135] to [139], we accept that there is no right nor requirement on a party to elect whether the builder is to undertake the remedial works. 705 If a monetary order is to be made, we are guided by Willshee v Wescourt Ltd [2009] WASCA 87 where the Court stated by reference to Robinson v Harmon (1884) 1 Exch 850, 855; (1884) 154 ER 363, 365 at [62] that: The rule of the common law is, that where a party sustains a loss by reason of a breach of contract, he is, so far as money can do it, to be placed in the same situation, with respect to damages, as if the contract had been performed. Owners' position 706 The owners seek a monetary order from the Tribunal. The reasons for this are explained as follows:274 707 First, the owners say numerous errors arose from a failure of the builder to properly supervise the works. By way of example, the owners refer to May 2022 when one side of the brick wall was constructed by the builder on the back neighbour's land which had to be completely demolished and rebuilt. Mr Glover for the builder accepted that the work 274 Applicants' closing submissions filed on 27 January 2026 at pages 17 to 23. -- 129 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 130 was not representative of work by a competent builder and that the work was not competently supervised.275 708 Second, the owners say there are various ongoing issues with the garage door and it is still an item of complaint (see complaint item 43 above at [342] to [356]). This is despite the builder and its contractor attempting multiple times to install the garage door. The owners are concerned that if the builder is allowed to again attempt to fix the issues with the garage door that the problems will be ongoing as they have been for an extended period. The owners have three children and are concerned about the safety of the garage door. The owners do not agree with Mr Glover's view that 'they [garage door contractor] installed it, so they should be liable to fix it' because the garage door contractor has not fixed it after several attempts. 709 Third, the owners say that the defects in the concrete works include: (a) the back path of the pool area was not level; (b) most edging for the pool was not straight, both vertically and linear; (c) some of the pool edging had chipped away when the formwork was removed; (d) both concrete down the side of the house and the porch showed significant areas with excessive broom marks on the exposed concrete; and (e) the wall on the northern side of the driveway formwork had blown out and required cutting back. This wall was supposed to be exposed concrete to match the driveway. The owners say they had to later pay additional costs for the wall to be cut, rendered and then painted (which was not as per the design and only done due to the builder's error). 710 The owners refer to Mr Gover's oral evidence where he accepted:276 No. So even though your contractor undertook defective work, you didn't come to the site to try and assist in resolving it? You left it to Mr Sweetman, didn't you? ---Yes. 275 ts 101, 21 October 2025. 276 ts 104, 21 October 2025. -- 130 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 131 Yes. You didn't feel that your job as the builder was to try and manage the remediation works and removal? ---It was - in hindsight, probably, yes. But, no. We didn't help. And Perth Concrete, they didn't help either, did they, the people who did the works? --- No. 711 The owners say that had the builder properly supervised the construction works then the issues with the concrete could have been avoided and the concrete re-work would not have been undertaken (which was managed by Mr Sweetman himself, without the assistance of the builder). 712 Fourth, had the builder been serious about its obligations to remedy defects in the contractual defects period and generally then it would have prepared a defects list either at, or at least shortly after practical completion. The builder did not prepare a defects list but rather left it to the owners to locate various defects over time and then later to engage their own building inspector. This in in circumstances where Mr Glover accepts that it is good practice to prepare a 'snagging list' on completion of works.277 713 Fifth, the owners are concerned there are still various issues with the plumbing and that while the builder sent a plumber to the property, the plumber removed the reflux value but never returned to sort out this issue and other plumbing defects. 714 Sixth, the lawn was badly damaged when the builder left a pool blanket on it on a hot summer's day. Mr Glover sent a text saying the issue would be resolved but it never was. While the lawn was ultimately brought back through the owners doing extra watering, the owners say that is not the point, but rather this is another example of the builder's lack of care and supervision with the resultant negative impact on the owners. 715 Seventh, the owners say that a prudent builder seeking to remedy outstanding defect items would have arranged for painting defects to be resolved within the six or seven months since hand over in October 2022. 716 Eighth, the owners say there is an extensive number of defects as set out in the Complaint Schedule. The defects are not simple standard punch list items that a residential builder would expect to remedy in a contractual defects' liability period, rather they are a long list of defective 277 ts 104 to 105, 21 October 2025. -- 131 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 132 works showing a failure of the builder and in particular, Mr Glover, to properly supervise the building works. The owners are living in the property with their three children and if a works order is made, they would have to move out of the property and leave the home along with various possessions under the care and control of the builder which the owners say is an unsatisfactory position. 717 Ninth, the owners say that the proposed remedial works as set out by the builder in the Complaint Schedule demonstrate that the builder will not undertake the remedial work actually required to properly remedy the cause and effect of the defects and with the resultant risk of further disputes and potentially returning to the Tribunal. The owners say this is evident from the differing scope of work proposed by the experts. 718 In conclusion, the owners say that by reason of the various failures of the builder to properly supervise the works and the extensive defects that have arisen and that still exist, the owners have justifiably lost confidence in the workmanship and skill of the builder. Builder's position 719 The builder opposes any monetary order because, in the view of the builder, there is no singularly good reason why the builder should not be given an opportunity to rectify the defects to the extent that the liability is either admitted or found by the Tribunal. This is for the following reasons:278 720 First, the builder says that Mr Sweetman was an unimpressive witness at the final hearing. In the builder's view, in giving evidence, Mr Sweetman was evasive, gave non-responsive answers to simple and direct questions and was reluctant to make concessions or admissions against his own interest. When Mr Sweetman made an admission with regards to his involvement in defrauding the provider of finance with the respect to the works, the builder says that Mr Sweetman tried to minimise his role in the fraud. 721 Further, the builder says that as Mr Sweetman's willingness to engage in the fraud of his financier to obtain a financial benefit that he accepted, but for that fraud he would not have received demonstrates his willingness to advanced untruths for a monetary benefit. Also, the builder says Mr Sweetman both in his written and oral evidence gave 278 Respondent's closing submissions filed on 27 January 2026 at pages 6 to 16. -- 132 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 133 speculatory evidence as to the propriety of the builder's charging practices over the course of the works despite having taken not steps to raise those issues formally with the builder previously, despite being alive to those issues which are alluded to in an email to Mr Glover where Mr Sweetman stated:279 [J]ust quietly, our new accountant … with one being forensic accounting[.] 722 The builder says Mr Sweetman's willingness to place his unsubstantiated views with respect to the 'feel' that he had in relation to the builder's charging practices into issue but when cross examined responded to questions by saying that those matter are not for discussion thereby demonstrating Mr Sweetman's wish to give disparaging evidence about Mr Glover but that he was not prepared or even able to support those contentions. 723 Second, the builder says Mr Sweetman gave his evidence in a partisan manner where he tailored his evidence to suit his application by omitting details and giving half-truths when it benefitted his case. An example given was that Mr Sweetman gave evidence that he had not been provided with substantiation for the costs that he had paid to the builder in respect of the build but then agreed that he had not made any request for the substantiation in circumstances where Mr Sweetman failed to note that he had access to, and could review the invoices from the builder if he wished to via the 'Monday spreadsheet'. 724 Third, the builder says that Mr Glover was an impressive witness who gave his evidence in a calm and forthright matter and readily made concessions against his interests and accepted that the works were defective and required rectification. In relation to the alleged fraudulent contract, the builder says that Mr Glover had no involvement in the provision of the contract to the financier and that all that Mr Glover was doing was a favour for a person whom he regarded as a friend before the involvement in this proceeding. The builder says that at its highest, this demonstrates that Mr Glover is prepared to engage in a falsehood for the benefit of Mr Sweetman, rather than in his own self-interest. 725 Fourth, while the builder accepts that its correspondence with the owners towards the end of their relationship reveals a level of disputation, that in itself is not sufficient to warrant the institution of a monetary order over a general works order as 'in most cases, … it is a 279 Exhibit 1 at page 304. -- 133 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 134 natural consequence of any dispute between an owner and a builder' (Faqiri and A & M Construction Group Pty Ltd [2022] WASAT 79 at [299] and that the disputation by itself, even if it applies to more than one proceeding, will not be sufficient reason to make a monetary order over a building remedy order (Kos at [56]). 726 Fifth, the owners place too much reliance on the builder's statement 'our working relationship has totally broken down' which when read in context, the statement is not coupled with an intention by the builder to abrogate its responsibilities with respect to the remedial works or that the builder does not want to attend to the remedial works. The builder says that Mr Glover's email of 6 July 2023,280 when read in context identifies the difficulty with the parties' working relationship and proposes to mitigate that issue by engaging an independent company to rectify the defects at the builder's cost. Such proposal says the builder is entirely reasonable and consistent with a preparedness on the part of the builder to rectify the defects. 727 Sixth, Mr Sweetman's level of distrust of Mr Glover is not warranted. This is because, according to the builder, Mr Sweetman's suspicions about the builder's charging practices over the course of the build amounts to nothing more than unqualified speculation. In any event, the builder says that any suspicions should not get in the way of the remedial works because the remedial works would be carried out without charge to the owners. Further, the owners had access to the invoices which they could have considered to determine if the builder had overcharged. 728 Seventh, following Kos at [62] just weight needs to be given to the willingness of the builder to remedy the defects complaint of. The builders says that weight is to be given in favour of the builder where Mr Glover: (a) expressed preparedness to engage an independent builder to remedy the defects; (b) wrote to the Building Commissioner on 6 July 2023281 stating that the builder was prepared to undertake the remedial works as proposed by the builder in completing the Complaint Schedule; 280 Exhibit 1 at page 545. 281 Exhibit 1 at page 545. -- 134 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 135 (c) wrote to the Building Commissioner on 19 January 2025 stating, in part:282 Skytree Homes has always been willing to rectify the defects/snagging items since the first time they were raised by the Sweetmans, as no one can build a house without defects. But the Sweetmans not granting us access or limiting access and the breakdown of communication, rectifying issues was made impossible. (d) wrote to the owners on 4 March 2025283 via its former legal representative confirming the builder's willingness to rectify the defects in accordance with the recommendations set out in the Investigation Report prepared by the Building Commissioner; and (e) confirms he will cause the builder to remedy the defects and not refrain from doing so on the basis of non-payment of the final payment claim of $112,000. 729 Eighth, the owners were only able to point to one minor instance of concern where the construction methodology intended to be employed by the builder may not result in the rectification of the defect. 730 Nineth, although a number of items of complaint have been referred to the Tribunal for determination, the defects themselves are relatively minor. Further, while the builder accepts that there are some defects which are significant cost items to rectify, the builder says that the owners have not pointed to any defects which create circumstances of a lack of safety or a fundamental failure to carry out works properly or proficiently. In addition, the builder says that the owners' reference to a singular defect that the owners assert would not be rectified if the builder's construction methodology was deployed falls short of establishing a reasonable basis for loss of confidence in the builder. 731 Tenth, it was the owners' intention to obtain expert reports to detail the defects which resulted in the owners excluding the builder from the property rather than any other substantive reason for denial of access. 732 Eleventh, the builder says that the myriad of issues that arose over the construction of the wall on the lot boundary, the garage door, the concreting and the damaged lawn complained off by the owners were 282 Exhibit 1 at page 1128. 283 Exhibit 1 at page 1137. -- 135 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 136 relatively minor or transient issues which did not justify the owners loss of confidence in the builder or were issues resolved by Mr Glover who approached the matters in an amicable and forthright manner. Further, the builder says that if the owners had lost confidence in the builder to carry out the remedial works, then the owners would have excluded the builder much earlier than 30 May 2023. 733 Twelfth, the builder says that Mr Glover accepted that it was reasonable for the owners to have lost confidence in the garage door contractor, after several attempts at rectification and gave evidence that the builder would be prepared to nominate an alternative garage contractor to rectify the defect. 734 Thirteenth, the builder says that the owners unreasonably denied the builder access to the property from 30 May 2023 including that the owners' expectation as to when the defects would be rectified. The builder says that the owners requested 'external works' to be prioritised over the rectification of defects in preparation for a Christmas party. Further, the builder says it was unreasonable for the owners to expect there would be available tradesman to conduct remedial works during the December 2022 to January 2023 period is unreasonable when this is a well know 'shutdown period' in the construction industry in Western Australia. 735 In conclusion, the builder submits there is no singularly good reason why the builder should not be given the opportunity to rectify the defects to the extent liability is either found or admitted. Further, the builder says the benefit of lessening the hardship to the builder as well as the relative difficulty to find contractors to perform remedial works the owners may encounter to source other appropriate tradesmen and contractors outweighs any substantial shortcomings. Exercise of the Tribunal's discretion 736 Earlier we made findings that the builder carried out a regulated building service that was faulty or unsatisfactory or had not been carried out in a proper and proficient manner. We turn now to s 36(1) of the BSCRA Act which confers a statutory discretion on the Tribunal to make a building remedy order. Relevantly s 36(1) of the BSCRA Act is set out above at [699]. -- 136 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 137 737 The owners have expressed their strong preference for a monetary order and not a remedial works order.284 Conversely, the builder has expressed their strong preference for a remedial works order. Irretrievable breakdown in relationship 738 The owners do not want the builder to perform any of the remedial work because they excluded the builder from returning to do any work from May 2023 due to the irretrievable breakdown down between the parties. In addition, the owners say they have lost confidence in the builder to undertake the remedial work due to the builder's failure to properly supervise, the number of extensive defects, the builder having already tried to remedy defects unsuccessfully and the refusal or failure to attend to performing the remedial work when invited by the owners. 739 The builder acknowledges the relationship between the parties is irretrievable. Mr Glover by his email of 6 July 2023 confirms this where he states that 'the working relationship has totally broken down'. 740 It is uncontroversial and we find there is an irretrievable breakdown (in the sense as explained in Gemmill Homes at [33]) in the relationship between the owners and the builder. However, such a finding is not determinative on the form of the order (monetary versus remedial order) because in most disputes it is a natural consequence for there to be a breakdown in the relationship between the owner and the builder. Nature and extent of complaints 741 The owners say the extensive defects are not simply standard punch list items that a residential builder would expect to remedy in a contractual defects' liability period. Rather the owners say there is a long list of defective works showing a failure by the builder, and in particular Mr Glover, to properly supervise the building works. The owners submit that the costs to remedy the complaint items is in excess of $300,000. The owners are concerned that the scope of remedial works proposed by the builder is inadequate to properly remedy the items of complaint. Further, the owners say that the builders responses on the Complaint Schedule and the different scope of remedial work proposed by the builder's costing expert, Mr Jones, demonstrate that the builder, if permitted, will not undertake the work actually required to properly to properly remedy the cause and effect with the resultant concern of further disputes and returning to the Tribunal. By reason of these matters, the 284 While there is no right or requirement to elect a remedy under s 36(1) of the BSCRA Act, parties are entitled to express their preference (Gemmill at [131] to [135]). -- 137 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 138 owners say they have lost confidence in the workmanship and skill of the builder. 742 The builder says the number of defects are relatively minor and that none of the defects create circumstances of a lack of safety or a fundamental failure to carry out works properly and proficiently. Further, the builder says the owners were only able to point to one minor instance of concern where the construction methodology proposed by the builder may not result in the rectification of the defect. 743 We do not accept the builder's assertions for the following reasons. 744 First, while we accept there are many minor defects, however, of the 100 or so complaint items many are significant defects. These include the flooring, the garage door, water ingress at the entry door, water ingress in the guest ensuite as well as plumbing and drainage issues. 745 Second, in our view, this is not a case like in Kos where the nature and extent of the complaint items that required rectification was limited to 13 complaint items of which the builder conceded seven of the complaint items and acknowledged that remedial works were required in respect of three complaint items which left only three items of complaint in contention. Conversely, in this matter, there is in excess of 100 complaint items which require rectification, which is significantly more and is at the higher end of the scale of the number of items of complaints for building disputes that come before the Tribunal. Further, in this case the builder challenged many of the complaint items (more than 30) as compared to three items of complaint in contention in Kos. 746 Third, Mr Sweetman testified, and is reflected in his witness statement, issues arose including in respect of the construction of a wall over the lot boundary, the poor concrete work, which was all ripped up and repoured, as well as the ongoing attempts to rectify the garage door. These, in our view, are some of the significant items of complaint much of which goes to lack of or poor supervision by the builder. In relation to each of these items, Mr Glover properly conceded that he failed to properly supervise the work and that it was reasonable for the owners to have lost confidence in at least the garage door contractor. In our view, Mr Glover's evidence in regards to the garage door at the final hearing was opportunistic where he stated that he would nominate an alternative contractor to rectify the garage door complaint. This is -- 138 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 139 because in the Complaint Schedule, the response of the builder was that the garage door may still be under warranty and in any event, proposes for the original supplier to undertake the remedial work. Finally, in his witness statement, Mr Glover made no statement about the garage door. 747 We accept the owners' contentions regarding the nature and extent of the complaint items. This weighs in favour of a monetary order. Previous attempts to remedy building complaints unsuccessfully 748 We do not accept the builder's submission that the garage door complaint is a 'singular instance of repeated attempts of rectification'.285 749 Besides the garage door complaint item where there are still problems with the operation of the garage door after multiple attempts by the builder and its contractor, attempts at remedying plumbing and painting complaint items have been unsuccessful. These are detailed in Mr Sweetman's witness statement. 750 Following the sewerage blockage, on 26 October 2022, Ms Glover sent a plumber to the property. The plumber took out the reflux value and said he would return to check on the problem but then never did. Earlier in these reasons we made findings about the plumbing works (see complaints items 109.4 and 109.5 above at [581] to [588]). 751 In regards to the items of complaint concerning painting, the builder's painter, Mr Paul Toyne of Toyne Painting and Decorating attended the property after hand over to attend to remedying the complaint items concerning the painting, however there is still an extensive number of complaints concerning the painting (see complaint items 5 to 34 above at [310] to [318]). 752 We conclude that the builder's previous attempts to remedy the garage door, blocked sewerage and painting issues support the owners' position that they have lost confidence in the builder to perform this work. This weighs in favour of a monetary order. Failure or refusal to remedy defective work 753 It is uncontroversial that the owners moved into the property, with the approval of Mr Glover, in the last week of October 2022. It is also 285 Respondent's closing submissions filed on 27 January 2026 at page 13. -- 139 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 140 uncontroversial that the owners refused the builder access to the property from 30 May 2023. 754 We do not accept the builder's contention that the owners unreasonably denied the builder access from 30 May 2023 and that the owners' expectation as to when defects would be remedied is unreasonable. Our reasons are as follows. 755 First, while we accept that the builder attended to 'external works' requested by the owners in order to prepare for a Christmas party in or about December 2022, and therefore the builder was not available to attend to remedial works (for an unspecified time) and that Mr Glover received a text on 2 February 2023 requesting that the builder cease all work (including remedial work),286 however Mr Glover in his witness statement, states that the builder continued to carry out landscaping works and other miscellaneous works until March 2023.287 Further, Mr Glover in his witness statement states that the builder rectified the smoke alarm and RCDs, a blockage in the bath drain and a leak in the ensuite shower between April 2023 and June 2024288 (which we accept the year is '2023' and not '2024'). 756 Mr Sweetman's witness statement sets out in detail events from October 2022 through to July 2023 which reflects his frustration with the builder but ultimately allowing the builder the opportunity to attend the property to carry out remedial work. Mr Glover acknowledged the 'mess' and in his email of 2 February 2026 to the owners acknowledged the owners' frustration and stated in part:289 I have dropped the ball and acknowledge my shortcomings in the final phase of the build. I understand your frustration and would like the opportunity to rectify everything in a well organised and timely manner. 757 However, when the owners, a few days later, on 7 February 2023, by text message asked Mr Glover for 'a time frame of completion'290 there was no reply until almost a month later on 3 March 2023 when Mr Glover 286 Exhibit 1 at page 972. 287 Exhibit 1 at page 958. 288 Ibid. 289 Exhibit 1 at page 527 to 528. 290 Exhibit 1 at page 464. -- 140 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 141 sent a text message asking to 'chat about what is or has happened … would like to clear the air and lock in a plan moving forward'.291 758 Mr Sweetman says he met with Mr Glover on or about 31 March 2023 to discuss the outstanding defects. It was at this time that Mr Sweetman understood the builder was failing to undertake remedial works in preference for work that could be invoiced. In April 2023 the owners sought an independent inspection of their home which they received on 26 April 2023 and a copy was provided to the builder. 759 The owners 'were done' with the builder as expressed in their email of 30 May 2023 to Mr Glover. It provides:292 We're done mate. We were on the verge of pulling the pin when we met 3 weeks ago but against better judgement, went with it again. Since then, you've haven't followed through with anything that was planned or talked about (apart from fixing air con) and once again booked time in to rectify issues that never eventuated. The final straw being your email demanding money and once again belittling the myriad of problems there is to deal with here. We will be back to you shortly regarding a proposed settlement. 760 We do not accept Mr Glover's evidence293 that the builder remedied the defects which are listed in the Handover Inspection Report prepared by Home Integrity Building consultants dated 26 April 2023.294 This is because we have made finding about many of the defects as set out in these reasons for decision. 761 Further, while we note Mr Glover's evidence that he informed the delegate of the Building Commission on 9 October 2024 that the builder 'has always been willing to rectify any issues caused by [the builder] or any subcontractors workmanship',295 his proposal clearly acknowledges the 'non-existent' working relationship with the owners and the proposals he put forward are directly linked to payment of what Mr Glover's says is outstanding. The two options as follows: Option 1. With the guidance of the Building Commission or an independent quantity surveyor, [the builder] and the [owners] will sign a 291 Exhibit 1 at page 465. 292 Exhibit 1 at page 976. 293 Respondent's closing submissions filed on 27 January 2026 at page 15. 294 Exhibit 1 at pages 599 to 648. 295 Exhibit 1 at page 989 to 990. -- 141 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 142 legally binding agreement, which allows the trades listed in the addenda to rectify their defects, and for all the outstanding $112,000 to be paid. … Option 2. With the guidance of the Building Commission or an independent quantity surveyor, [the builder] and the [owners] will sign a legal binding settlement agreement. Both parties to negotiate a fair and reasonable total settlement figure across all items, taking into consideration the time passed and building cost increases, as well as interest charges on outstanding owed money. With the [b]alance being paid to [the builder]. 762 Further, Mr Glover's email of 6 July 2023 to the owners' states that '[a]ll [he] ever wanted was a payment plan as we completed the items of concern'.296 763 Based on the above, we find that Mr Glover's position is that any remedial work would only done provided the owners pay the outstanding amount. 764 We accept the owners' contentions regarding the builder's failure or refusal to undertake the remedial work. This weighs in favour of a monetary order. Justifiable loss of confidence in the skill and workmanship of the builder 765 We do not accept the builder's submission that the issues complained of by the owners with particular reference to the construction of a wall over the lot boundary, the garage door issue, the concreting problems and the issue concerning the damaged lawn are 'relatively minor issues' and which are transient or resolved on their own (such as the lawn) or were resolved by Mr Glover and therefore 'do not justifiably warrant a loss of confidence in the 'builder's] workmanship'.297 766 We made findings earlier in these reasons for over 100 items of complaint. While some items were of a minor nature, others are very significant including the flooring issue. Others such as the construction of the wall over the lot boundary and the poor concreting which was all ripped up and repoured support the owners' loss of confidence in the skill and workmanship of the builder. This weighs in favour of a monetary order. 296 Exhibit 1 at page 984. 297 Respondent's closing submissions at page 13. -- 142 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 143 767 Further, we do not accept the builder's submission that Mr Sweetman's evidence of the 'myriad of opportunities' given to the builder to rectify defects and that the builder was allowed on the property until 30 May 2023 supports the position that the owners have not lost confidence in the builder. In our view, it is clear that the owners were frustrated with the builder but against their better judgment, as Mr Sweetman described in his email of 30 May 2023, they allowed the builder to continue until they got to the point where they stated, 'they were done'. The owners got to this point after they had organised for an independent inspection of their property and received the report from Home Integrity Building Consultants on 26 April 2023 which identified numerous building defects. We find the owners tried to work with the builder until 30 May 2023 which is the point that we find is when the owners lost all confidence in the skill and workmanship of the builder. This weighs in favour of a monetary order. 768 Finally, we observe that the Tribunal has no statutory power to compel, or to require the owners, who have a right to control entry to their property, to allow access to the property to enable remedial works to be carried out in accordance with an order under s 36(1)(a) of the BSCRA Act. In other words, if there is evidence that such access is likely to be denied then that is a relevant consideration to be taken into account in determining the type of order to be made. In this case, as already stated, but is repeated here, the owners state they were 'done' by 30 May 2023, and they have refused the builder access to the property from that date. This weighs in favour of a monetary order. Conclusion 769 In conclusion, we accept that there may be financial hardship for the builder by making a monetary order (rather than a remedial works order). However, for all of the forgoing reasons and in order to bring finality to the litigation between the owners and the builder, in our view, it is reasonable and appropriate to exercise the Tribunal's powers in this case to make a monetary order (rather than a remedial works order) under s 36(1) of the BSCRA Act. 770 We will exercise the Tribunal's statutory powers to make a final monetary order under s 36(1)(b) of the BSCRA Act, to give leave to the owners to withdraw complaints items 109.1, 109.9 and 109.10 from the proceeding under s 46(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) and to decline to make any order in respect of complaint -- 143 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 144 items 40, 54, 55, 62, 66, 72, 75, 83 and 109.7 (see summary above at [651]. 771 We will hear from the parties as to the terms of the Orders which should be made to give effect to these reasons for decision (including the date when payment must be made by the builder to the owners) and programming of the matter for the provision of evidence to be relied upon and submissions which are to be made in relation to the issue of the reasonable duration (days/hours) of the remedial works to be the subject of supervision and the reasonable duration (days/hours) that the owners and their children are required to vacate the property in order for remedial works to be undertaken. 772 To facilitate this process, we make the following orders. Orders The Tribunal orders: 1. A copy of the Tribunal's reasons for decision (Reasons) is to be provided to the parties. 2. The parties are to confer and must lodge (file) with the Tribunal by 15 May 2026 a minute of agreed proposed orders: (a) to give effect to the Reasons; and (b) programming the matter for the provision of evidence to be relied upon and submissions which are to be made in relation to the issue of the reasonable duration (days/hours) for the remedial works to be the subject of supervision and the reasonable duration (days/hours) that the applicants and their children are required to vacate the property for remedial works to be undertaken for specified items of complaint. 3. If the parties are unable to reach agreement as to the matters set out in order 2 above, each party must lodge (file) with the Tribunal and provide a copy to the other party, a minute of proposed orders addressing the matters set out in order 2 above by 15 May 2026. 4. The Tribunal will list the matter for a further directions hearing after 15 May 2026 to deal with the making of orders if it is necessary to do so. -- 144 of 145 -- [2026] WASAT 42 Page 145 I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal. MS R PETRUCCI, MEMBER 1 MAY 2026 -- 145 of 145 --

Official source: https://ecourts.justice.wa.gov.au/eCourtsPortal/Decisions/ViewDecision?id=e36ff590-e17a-4b95-8f0c-2eea9cad3313