BUILDSMART PTY LTD and BUILDING SERVICES BOARD [2026] WASAT 90

[2026] WASAT 90 Page 1 JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : BUILDING SERVICES (REGISTRATION) ACT 2011 (WA) CITATION : BUILDSMART PTY LTD and BUILDING SERVICES BOARD [2026] WASAT 90 MEMBER : MS N OLDFIELD, MEMBER MR M ANDERSON, SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER MR S BURNS, SESSIONAL MEMBER HEARD : 18-19 DECEMBER 2025 AND 23 APRIL 2026 CLOSING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS LODGED ON 1 MAY 2026 DELIVERED : 31 JULY 2026 FILE NO/S : CC 720 of 2025 BETWEEN : BUILDSMART PTY LTD Applicant AND BUILDING SERVICES BOARD Respondent Catchwords: Building contractor registration - Review of decision refusing to renew registration - Capacity to meet debts as and when they fall due - Turns on own facts -- 1 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 2 Legislation: Building Services (Registration) Act 2011 (WA), s 18(1), s 18(1)(b), s 18(2), s 64(1)(a), s 64(2) Building Services (Registration) Regulations 2011 (WA), reg 18(1), reg 18(2) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 27, s 32(2) State Administrative Tribunal Rules 2004 (WA), r 39A Result: Application unsuccessful Decision under review affirmed Category: B Representation: Counsel: Applicant : Mr J Jacobson Respondent : Mr E Homan Solicitors: Applicant : Jacobson and Associates Respondent : Industry Regulation & Consumer Protection Legal Services Division Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Nil -- 2 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 3 REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: Introduction 1 The Building Services Board (Board) refused to renew the registration of Buildsmart WA Pty Ltd (Buildsmart) as a registered building contractor on the basis Buildsmart did not meet the financial requirements for registration. 2 Buildsmart disputed the Board's conclusion and applied for a review of the decision by the Tribunal. Issue for Determination 3 The primary issue for determination is whether the correct and preferable decision is to grant or refuse the renewal of Buildsmart's registration. Answering that question requires a consideration of whether Buildsmart meets the financial requirements for registration. Legislative framework 4 Section 18(1) of the Building Services (Registration) Act 2011 (WA) (BSR Act) provides that the Board must renew the registration of a building service contractor if the Board is satisfied the relevant contractor has satisfied eight specified criteria. Section 18(2) states the Board must not renew the registration if the requirements of s 18(1) have not been met. 5 One of the specified criteria is that that contractor must have the capacity to meet debts as and when they fall due.1 In making an assessment, the Board may consider a broad range of factors.2 6 If a person is aggrieved by a decision to refuse to renew a registration, they may apply to the Tribunal for a review of that decision.3 7 The purpose of a review by the Tribunal is not to assess the original decision, but to determine the correct and preferable decision as at the time of the review.4 For this reason, the Tribunal may consider new evidence which was not before the original decision-maker. 1 BSR Act, s 18(1)(b) and Building Services (Registration) Regulations 2011 (WA) (BSR Regs), reg 18(1). 2 BSR Regs, reg 18(2). 3 BSR Act, s 64(1)(a) and s 64(2). 4 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 27. -- 3 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 4 Background facts 8 Our findings as to material facts on the balance of probabilities are as follows. Unless indicated otherwise, they were uncontentious. 9 The Board is responsible for the registration of building service providers. Building and Energy (BE) is part of the WA Department of Local Government, Industry Regulation and Safety (LGIRS) and provides services on behalf of the Board. 10 Buildsmart was incorporated on 1 October 2013. Aleksandar Petrovski is the sole director and secretary. Mr Petrovski has a background as a residential building scheduler and estimator. He is not a registered building contractor or building practitioner. 11 Buildsmart was first registered as a building contractor on 14 April 2014. At present Michael Adams is the nominated supervisor for Buildsmart. Mr Adams is a registered building practitioner and building contractor. 12 On 16 October 2024 Buildsmart applied to BE for renewal of its registration. 13 On 5 November 2024 BE wrote to Buildsmart to request additional information for the purpose of the Board assessing whether Buildsmart had the capacity to pay its debts as and when they fall due. The information sought comprised financial statements for 30 June 2023 and 30 June 2024, a list of aged creditors and debtors, details of work in progress, a current bank statement, evidence of lodgement and payment of relevant taxes (or terms for payment of the same) and details of its home indemnity insurance facility. 14 Buildsmart applied for and was granted several extensions of time in relation to the above request for information and subsequent requests for information by BE. The final extensions of time expired on 28 August 2025 and 4 September 2025. 15 At a meeting on 14 October 2025 the Board considered this matter. The Board's decision was to refuse to renew the registration because it was not satisfied Buildsmart had demonstrated it met the financial requirements for registration as a building contractor. This decision was based upon the following analysis: -- 4 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 5 (a) After re-assessing what appeared to be an overstatement of the value of trade debtors, it appeared the net asset position as at 31 December 2024 was -$4,779.74. (b) Buildsmart was facing a minimum cash flow deficit of $48,397 over the following 12 months. (c) There was no evidence of Buildsmart having access to an overdraft or loan facility. (d) The declared assets of Buildsmart appeared unlikely to be accepted as security in relation to a new loan facility. (e) There were indicators of potential insolvency, such as overdue taxes, cash on demand arrangements with suppliers (which may have indicated a history of late or failed payments) and its apparent difficulty in providing accurate and timely accounts to BE. Opinion evidence 16 Jodie Guppy and Vy Huynh are both employed by LGIRS. They produced a report analysing the financial information provided by Buildsmart, which was relied upon by the Board in its decision to decline re-registration. Ms Guppy and Ms Huynh prepared a further report which analysed the evidence provided by Buildsmart in the course of these proceedings. Both reports expressed the view Buildsmart has not demonstrated it can pay its debts as and when they fall due. 17 Both reports state that Ms Guppy and Ms Huynh consider themselves bound by the obligations which apply to independent expert witnesses giving evidence in proceedings before the Tribunal.5 18 In its written closing submissions, Buildsmart suggests the Tribunal should not rely upon these reports because Ms Guppy and Ms Huynh as employees of LGIRS are not independent. Furthermore, Buildsmart suggests their involvement in the Board's investigations means they are 'hopelessly conflicted' and could be considered to be acting as advocates for the Board. 19 In this proceeding, the Tribunal has heard many expressions of opinion. Mr McGrath expressed opinions regarding the likely costs 5 State Administrative Tribunal Rules 2004 (WA), (SAT rules) r 39A. -- 5 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 6 of construction, as did Mr Petrovski, Mr du Toit and Mr Constanzo. Mr Petrovski, Michael Andruszkiw, Ms Guppy and Ms Huynh expressed opinions regarding the financial records of Buildsmart and the conclusions to be drawn from them. Each might be said to have varying degrees of independence. 20 In court proceedings, there are restrictions on the admissibility of opinion evidence. The Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence.6 Therefore the concern is not whether opinion evidence is admissible, but whether the evidence is relevant to the issues and if so, the weight to be given to the opinion. 21 Expert evidence is not immune from the evaluative process. Indeed, there are countless proceedings in which the Tribunal has not been persuaded by the view of a particular expert. 22 We have proceeded on the basis the expertise or independence of a witness are factors to be taken into account when assessing the relevance of, and weight to be given to, their evidence. Evidence regarding the financial position of Buildsmart Work in progress 23 Over the course of the Board's enquiries and the Tribunal proceedings, Buildsmart provided four schedules of its work in progress. The more relevant parts of those schedules are annexed to this decision. 24 As at 31 January 2025 Buildsmart listed eight projects as being in progress. The earliest contract dates were late December 2020 and the most recent was September 2024. Five contracts were at the 'slab down' stage, one was at lock up and the most recent was at the stage of preliminary documentation. In relation to the projects at the slab down stage, Buildsmart estimated three would be completed in early April 2025 and two in August 2025. 25 As at 16 November 2025, Buildsmart had 13 projects in progress (November 2025 WIP). The date of the contracts varied between March 2021 and November 2025. Seven were at 'slab down' stage and four were at stages preliminary to construction. Of the four contracts which remained from the January list, the estimated time for 6 SAT Act, s 32(2). -- 6 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 7 completion had been significantly extended for two, and one remained at the preliminary documents stage. 26 As at 21 January 2026, Buildsmart had 11 projects in progress (January 2026 WIP). All were the same contracts as had been on foot in November, save for two of the four projects at the preliminary stage which had fallen away. The estimated date of completion had been extended for all projects, save that located at The Vines. 27 As at 22 April 2026, Buildsmart had 12 projects in progress (April 2026 WIP). All were the same contracts as had been in progress in January of that year, save for the return of a project which had been omitted from the November 2025 and January 2026 WIP. Of the total 12 projects listed, two were at the preliminary stage, three had been varied to cost plus contracts, two remained at slab down and four estimated dates of completion had been extended. 28 Relevantly to the expert reports considered below, the work in progress schedules state the total contract price (comprising the original construction contract plus any variations) as follows: (a) Treeby site - $305,481 including GST; (b) Cloverdale A - $316,451 including GST; and (c) Singleton - $491,312 including GST. 29 We note when converting contract and contract variation prices as including or excluding GST, there is a small inconsistency between the contract prices in the Buildsmart work in progress schedules and the breakdowns of the amounts contained in the expert reports of Mr du Toit. The parties agreed the total contract prices including variations and including GST were as contained in the schedules. In the absence of the contractual documents, we accept the accuracy of the total contract price as contained in the Buildsmart work in progress schedules and have taken the breakdown by Mr du Toit as being sufficiently close for the purposes of our decision. 30 We further note there is no evidence as to whether or not the relevant owners accept or dispute the variations to the prices of the contract issued by Buildsmart. -- 7 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 8 Construction cost overruns The parties' evidence 31 The Board alleged Buildsmart will incur significant cost overruns in relation to the completion of its works in progress. In November 2025, Ian McGrath, senior technical officer of BE, assessed the current costs of the contracts. His report was based on a software estimation of the floor area of each project and application of the lowest full brick rate in the Rawlinsons Construction Cost Guide 2025 (Rawlinsons). He calculated the costs of construction could exceed the contract prices by an amount exceeding $3.18 million including GST. 32 Mr Petrovski disagreed. He produced schedules detailing his own analysis of building costs, which estimated the amounts paid by owners pursuant to the construction contracts would exceed construction costs by over $540,000 including GST. The expert evidence 33 During the course of the final hearing, the parties sought and were granted leave to adduce expert evidence regarding construction costs. 34 Mr du Toit is a qualified quantity surveyor, principal of BDI Quantity Surveying, with some 30 years experience in the construction environment in Australia and overseas. He was engaged by Buildsmart to consider the likely cost to complete projects identified in this decision as Treeby, Cloverdale A and Singleton. 35 Mr Costanzo is a qualified quantity surveyor, director of Sage Quantity Surveyors Pty Ltd, with some 20 years' experience in the commercial and residential construction industries. He was engaged by the Board to consider the likely cost to complete the Treeby, Cloverdale A and Singleton projects. 36 The report of Mr du Toit dated 20 January 2026 estimated the probable total construction costs as at January 2026 (excluding GST, overheads and profit) as follows: (a) Treeby - $287,855; and (b) Cloverdale A - $249,961. 37 The report of Mr Costanzo dated 26 February 2026 estimated the probable total construction costs as at the date of his report (excluding -- 8 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 9 GST but including a 10% allowance for overheads and profit) as follows: (a) Treeby - $410,126; (b) Cloverdale A - $322,856; and (c) Singleton - $669,861. 38 Mr Costanzo's report also estimated the costs to complete (excluding GST but including a 10% allowance for overheads and profit) as follows: (a) Treeby - $356,799; (b) Cloverdale A - $210,569; and (c) Singleton - $588,214. 39 In a follow-up report dated 19 March 2026, Mr Costanzo stated he considered an allowance for overheads and profit as essential. 40 The report of Mr du Toit dated 22 April 2026 estimated the probable total construction costs as at April 2026 in relation to Singleton as $463,022 excluding GST, overheads and profit. If a margin of 10% were applied on account of overheads and profit, his figure was $509,355.66 excluding GST.7 41 The experts gave concurrent evidence during the hearing. Mr Costanzo remained firm as to the correctness of his assessments. Mr du Toit largely also was firm in relation to his assessments, although he conceded some smaller items included by Mr Costanzo should also have been included by him. Both agreed that on average, residential construction costs increase by 0.5% per month. They also agreed the hostilities in the Middle East (as at 23 April 2026) were causing significant upwards pressure on costs in addition to the usual factors. 42 In our view, some of the difference between the experts' opinions results from differing interpretations as to the inclusions and exclusions under the construction contracts. The most significant cause for the disparity between their analyses arose from their methods of analysis. 7 In adding 10% we reached a slightly different figure. We do not consider the difference significant in the context of these reasons. -- 9 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 10 43 Mr du Toit had approached the task by comparing the quotes and invoices supplied by Buildsmart to rates provided by the Cordell Construction Cost Index (Cordell) and considered the figures analogous. Accordingly, he used the figures contained in the quotes and invoices where they were available, and otherwise used the amounts provided by Cordell. 44 On the other hand, Mr Costanzo did not use those quotes and invoices. He said he had been engaged to perform an independent assessment and so assessed the probable costs based on his own industry knowledge and experience. He did not use the rates provided by Rawlinsons or Cordell. 45 Mr Costanzo said his industry experience was based upon looking after the money in relation to projects, which included validating material and labour quotations and costs before and after construction. He said his relevant recent experience related to residential developments including multi-unit developments. Our consideration and conclusions 46 Without intending any disrespect, we prefer the expert costs evidence over the evidence of Mr Petrovski and Mr McGrath. We do not rely upon Mr McGrath's assessments because: (a) Mr McGrath did not have available to him accurate information regarding the floor areas of each of the projects; (b) we have reservations regarding the relevance of the Rawlinsons figures to the Buildsmart projects; (c) the evidence does not suggest his training and experience in relation to the estimating of costs matches that of the costs experts; and (d) although we accept Mr McGrath had no personal interest in the proceedings, neither is he entirely independent. 47 We do not rely upon Mr Petrovski's schedules because: (a) in the absence of supporting evidence, various line items appeared to under estimate current industry rates; -- 10 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 11 (b) the evidence does not suggest his training and experience in relation to the estimating of costs matches that of the costs experts; and (c) as the sole director of Buildsmart, he is not independent. 48 Despite our preference for the expert reports, we have some reservations regarding their accuracy. In relation to Mr du Toit, the invoices and quotes upon which he relied were not in evidence. Also, it was unclear the extent to which he had exercised his own expertise, as opposed to simply applying the figures supplied to him. 49 Furthermore, Mr du Toit's calculations of floor areas and construction costs (adding 10% for overheads and profit) result in the following construction costs per square metre:8 (a) Treeby - $1,481; (b) Cloverdale A - $1,558; and (c) Singleton - $1,476. 50 Excluding price increases since January 2026, these rates are surprisingly low. There is no explanation as to how Buildsmart can achieve these rates. 51 In relation to Mr Costanzo, he said he ignored the evidence of the costs actually incurred regarding work already performed and instead preferred his own (higher) estimate. It was not adequately explained why paid invoices was not a reliable indicator of costs incurred in relation the relevant site. We consider this overly artificial. Delay damages 52 It was uncontroversial and we therefore accept the following: (a) Pursuant to orders of the Tribunal in unrelated proceedings between Buildsmart and the relevant homeowners, the due date for practical completion of construction in relation to the Bushmead site was 17 December 2025 and in relation to Treeby was 19 December 2025. (b) Pursuant to the same proceedings, if the dates for practical completion are not met, Buildsmart is liable to pay liquidated 8 Rounded to the nearest dollar. -- 11 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 12 damages of $100 per day (in relation to Bushmead) and $50 per day (in relation to Treeby) from the due date until the date of practical completion (liquidated damages). (c) At the close of the final hearing, neither house had reached practical completion. Buildsmart estimates both will be completed on 30 August 2026. 53 Mr Petrovski's evidence was that he had minimised the amount of liquidated damages by issuing notices of extension of time on 17 November 2025. The notices in evidence were unsigned, undated and bore no indication of having been sent to or received by the relevant homeowners. Each notice purported to extend the deadline for practical completion by 60 working days. Each notice stated the following reason for the delay, 'Material & Labour Shortage - Bricks as selected by Owner and Bricklayers and Labours'.9 54 We have reservations as to the validity of the notices extending time. However, the parties did not lodge evidence regarding the validity of these notices. We can therefore draw no conclusions regarding validity. 55 Mr Petrovski claimed the liability of Buildsmart to pay liquidated damages in relation to the Bushmead site would be approximately $5,000 to $7,500. He did not explain the basis on which he calculated these amounts. Mr Petrovski did not disclose any calculations of liquidated damages in relation to the Treeby site. 56 If the notices are ineffective and if each project is completed on 30 August 2026, the Board estimates Buildsmart's liability to pay liquidated damages as being $17,500 in relation to Bushmead and $8,650 in relation to Treeby. 57 The calculations of the Board are based on the assumption damages are payable in relation to business days. However the orders of the Tribunal refer to 'day' and not to business or working days. 58 Our calculations of the liquidated damages which Buildsmart could be liable to pay, in the various circumstances described, are below. 9 Exhibit 1, pages 99 - 100. -- 12 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 13 Bushmead Treeby 17 December 2025 - 30 August 2026 (all days) $25,600 17 December 2025 - 30 August 2026 (working days) $17,400 19 December 2025 - 30 August 2026 (all days) $12,700 19 December 2025 - 30 August 2026 (working days) $8,600 18 March 2025 - 30 August 2026 (all days) $16,500 18 March 2025 - 30 August 2026 (working days) $11,400 20 March 2025 - 30 August 2026 (all days) $8,150 20 March 2025 - 30 August 2026 (working days) $5,600 59 The Thornlie B project has not appeared in the work in progress schedules of Buildsmart since January 2025. Mr Petrovski gave evidence in December 2025 that there had been no progress since the slab was laid. He intended to issue a default notice regarding non-payment and to terminate the contract if payment was not made. 60 In its closing submissions, Buildsmart states that the contract has not been formally terminated, but the owner had clearly repudiated the contract by 'failing to communicate' with Buildsmart.10 There is insufficient information for us to be satisfied of the extent (if any) of the risk of liability this poses to Buildsmart. Other costs 61 The financial statements of Buildsmart for the years ending 30 June 2024 (2024 financial statement) and 30 June 2025 (2025 financial statement) provide the following breakdown of expenses: 10 Applicant's Closing Written Submissions filed 1 May 2026 (ACWS) at para 23(p). -- 13 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 14 2024 2025 Cost of Sales $73,842 $130,102 Direct costs $392,157 $392,029 Expenses $82,357 $74,351 Total $548,356 $596,842 62 The 2024 and 2025 financial statements state that Buildsmart paid the following wages: (a) in 2023 - $2,641; (b) in 2024 - $11,922; and (c) in 2025 - $12,556. 63 Mr Petrovski's evidence is that: (a) He does not draw a wage from Buildsmart. To an extent he has been reliant upon the income of his wife, but he also draws upon the monies he had lent to Buildsmart. (b) The wages recorded in the financial statements were paid to Mr Adams. The company was not very busy, and so Mr Adams had agreed to work on a part time basis. 64 We note that the schedule of works in progress dated 16 November 2025 indicated Buildsmart had 11 sites under construction with a further two sites at the preliminary documentation stage. Ordinarily this would appear to be a substantial amount of work for a building company comprised of one director and one part-time employee. Particularly given the sites were widely situated, from Two Rocks in the north, to Singleton in the south to The Vines in the east. 65 At the time of the Board's decision, information supplied by Buildsmart indicated that it had potential liabilities in relation to superannuation and unpaid GST, PAYG and income tax. The Board concedes that by the close of the final hearing the evidence indicated overdue amounts had been paid. 66 In the Board's reasons for decision, one of the concerns noted was the advice of Buildsmart that most of its suppliers were paid cash on -- 14 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 15 demand. It said this suggested suppliers were unwilling to provide Buildsmart credit facilities due to late or non-payment of previous invoices. 67 This was not specifically addressed by Buildsmart in the final hearing and Buildsmart did not lodge a statement of its current aged creditors. In its closing submissions, Buildsmart stated it does not have any aged creditors and it currently has credit facilities with six separate suppliers to a total of $165,000. 68 We do not accept the closing submissions as evidence. We are satisfied Buildsmart informed the Board in 2025 that most of its suppliers were paid cash on demand. There is no evidence this has since altered. Net assets 69 The amended financial statements provided by Buildsmart provide that its net asset position 2023 to 2025 was as follows: (a) Financial year ended 30 June 2023 - $53,222; (b) Financial year ended 30 June 2024 - $1,097; (c) Financial year ended 30 June 2025 - $43,032. 70 In the 2025 financial statements, over 99% of the current assets are comprised of trade debtors ($426,093) and work in progress ($126,091). Trade debtors11 71 Buildsmart stated its trade debtors as at 30 June 2025 comprised the following:12 Client Amount outstanding Castiello $8,643.36 LCPL $150,000.00 The Vines $39,325.00 Beckenham $21,120.39 Treeby $42,415.64 Singleton $164,589.00 Total $426,093.39 11 We have not included details of the owners' names because they are not relevant to this decision. 12 Exhibit 1, page 63. -- 15 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 16 72 Buildsmart stated its trade debtors as at 2 April 2026 (April TD statement) comprised the following:13 Client Amount outstanding Castiello $8,643.36 LCPL $150,000.00 The Vines $14,000.00 Beckenham $21,120.39 Treeby $42,415.64 Innaloo A & B $766.57 Thornlie A $5,000.00 Cloverdale A & B $156,316.96 Total $398,262.92 73 In relation to Castiello: (a) Mr Petrovski stated Buildsmart was working with the owner in relation to payment of the account. (b) The Board considered this should be disregarded as an asset of Buildsmart because the debt was over 10 years old and the last part payment was made by the client on 19 November 2021. (c) Buildsmart has not lodged evidence of receiving payment from the client. (d) On the basis of the April TD statement, we conclude this debt remains outstanding. We agree with the Board the prospects of Buildsmart now receiving payment are too slim for the debt to be considered as an asset. 74 In relation to LCPL: (a) Mr Petrovski stated Buildsmart issued an invoice in the amount of $150,000 prior to 30 June 2024 before work had commenced. The revised 2024 financial statement recategorized this sum from contract income/sales to unearned revenue. This project is not listed in the most recent statement of work in progress and Buildsmart has not lodged evidence indicating if or when work 13 Exhibit 10, page 12. -- 16 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 17 might be expected to commence. Accordingly, we consider it appropriate to remove this sum as an asset of Buildsmart. 75 In relation to Beckenham: (a) The Board considered this should be disregarded as an asset of Buildsmart because it was likely uncollectable. The job was at 'preliminary documentation' stage, the invoice was dated 9 September 2024, the job had not advanced since it was first included in the works in progress schedule dated 31 January 2025 and Buildsmart had acknowledged the job would likely not proceed because finance had not been secured by the owner. (b) Mr Petrovski said works were suspended by mutual agreement due to the outstanding balance. On 27 November 2025 he was informed the owner wished the project to restart. He had arranged a meeting to take place in December 2025. (c) Buildsmart has not lodged evidence of payments received from the owner, the outcome of the proposed meeting, nor any other change in circumstances. (d) We agree with the Board the debt appears too unlikely to now be paid to be included as an asset of Buildsmart. 76 In relation to Treeby: (a) The Board considered this should be disregarded as an asset of Buildsmart because the amount appeared to have been unpaid since at least 30 September 2024. (b) Mr Petrovski stated the owner had agreed to pay the outstanding amount in instalments of $10,000 as each new progress claim is rendered. There is no other evidence of the agreement, for example, a written agreement or text messages confirming an oral agreement. Also, despite progress in construction, the amount outstanding appears to be unchanged. (c) There is no information regarding how this debt arose. The amount does not match any instalments in the progress payment schedule. (d) The project to which this debt relates is one to which Buildsmart has an apparent liability to pay compensation. Although it was not suggested by Buildsmart, we speculate the -- 17 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 18 parties could arrange to set off their respective debts to each other. Therefore it may be inaccurate to disregard this amount. However, if the least delay damages applied, the amount recoverable in relation to Treeby might be $36,815.64. If the maximum amount of delay damages were payable by Buildsmart (but still assuming practical completion on 30 August 2026) the amount recoverable may only be $29,715.64. 77 In relation to The Vines: (a) Mr Petrovski stated Mr and Ms Adams had paid the full amount outstanding in July 2025. Buildsmart did not lodge evidence of the receipt of those funds. The current debt is said to have been outstanding for more than 90 days. The Board does not dispute the status of this as an asset. 78 The Board does not dispute that the amounts owed in relation to Innaloo A and B, Thornlie A and Cloverdale A and B are assets. 79 On the basis of the foregoing, our assessment of the trade debtors of Buildsmart (as at 2 April 2026 ) is as follows: Client Amount outstanding Castiello $0 LCPL $0 The Vines $14,000.00 Beckenham $0 Treeby $36,815.64 Innaloo A & B $766.57 Thornlie A $5,000.00 Cloverdale A & B $156,316.96 Total $212,899.17 Work in progress 80 The April 2026 WIP anticipates the following upcoming payments:14 Contract Next payment Estimated date of next payment Total payment claims remaining Treeby $40,504.00 23/4/2026 $202,432.00 Bushmead $72,101.00 15/5/2026 $216,432.00 14 Exhibit 17. -- 18 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 19 Victoria Park A - - - Innaloo A $53,994.00 30/4/2026 $162,111.00 Innaloo B $55,155.00 30/4/2026 $165,595.00 Singleton $98,262.00 4/5/2026 $294,788.16 Cloverdale A $63,290.00 22/5/2026 $140,002.00 Cloverdale B $63,290.00 22/5/2026 $140,002.00 The Vines $60,500.00 15/5/2026 $353,925.00 Thornlie A - - - 81 Buildsmart has not explained why Victoria Park A is listed as a work in progress and yet no further payments are anticipated. We observe it is said to be at lock up stage, and Mr Petrovski gave evidence the scope of works was to construct to the lock up stage. Our conclusion is that works at Victoria Park A are complete and it should not have been included in the April 2026 WIP. 82 Consistent with our above conclusion, the cashflow forecast lodged on 2 April 2026 (forecast) does not anticipate any further funds being expended or received in relation to Victoria Park A. 83 Inconsistently with the April 2026 WIP, the forecast anticipates in relation to Thornlie A that Buildsmart will expend $3,856 in early April 2026 and receive $5,000 by 1 May 2026. 84 As noted above,15 estimated dates of completion had extended significantly over the course of the schedules of works in progress produced in evidence. The most recent (the April WIP) anticipates all current projects will be completed in July or August 2026 (save for those in relation to which no date is provided). The cashflow forecast is not inconsistent, because it only extends to the end of July 2026. Cashflow 85 Initially, Buildsmart did not provide a cash flow analysis either during the Board's investigation or for the initial part of the final hearing in December 2025. 86 In their report which analysed the position of Buildsmart as at 3 December 2025, Ms Guppy and Ms Huynh included 'an indicative assessment' of Buildsmart's cash flow between 17 November 2025 to 16 November 2026.16 They considered Buildsmart was likely to experience a shortfall at a minimum of $72,921. This assessment was 15 See paras [25] - [27]. 16 Exhibit 1, page 1559. -- 19 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 20 largely based upon estimated cost overruns in relation to the Treeby and Bushmead sites, but also included the estimated cost of overheads and liabilities in relation to tax, superannuation, credit facilities and liquidated damages. 87 When the final hearing resumed in April 2026, Buildsmart had filed a cash flow forecast for the period 3 April 2026 to 31 July 2026. 88 Buildsmart submits the forecast was drafted by Mr Andruszkiw's accountancy firm and this together with the following statement of Mr Andruszkiw demonstrates the 'high probative' value of the forecast:17 While the level of supporting detail may be limited, this does not of itself invalidate the usefulness of the CFF as a financial planning tool. In real terms, the cashflow forecast for business of the Applicant's scale is not a complex task and does not contain significant assumptions. In my view and the way that I have guided the Applicant in its preparation was to in detail assess the timing of his progress claims and payment thereof along with the cost spent profile having consideration to creditor payment terms. 89 We do not agree with Buildsmart's interpretation. In our view the above statement by Mr Andruszkiw indicates: (a) Buildsmart prepared the forecast, with guidance from Mr Andruszkiw; and (b) Mr Andruszkiw considers the forecast a planning tool. 90 A planning tool is not the same as something that is objectively true. A planning tool may be more or less accurate, depending upon the accuracy of the data inputs. In this regard we note Mr Andruszkiw's evidence that, in preparing financial reports for Buildsmart and expressing the view it satisfied the financial requirements for registration, he had relied upon the information provided to him by Buildsmart. 91 The forecast was not accompanied by a list of the assumptions, inclusions and exclusions applied to the forecast. There are no supporting documents explicitly linked to the forecast. In its written closing submissions, Buildsmart stated that if the Board 'had requested additional "granular" information regarding the cash flow forecast, they 17 Exhibit 20, pages 2 - 3. -- 20 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 21 could have requested such information, which would have been provided'.18 With respect, that is misconceived. In these proceedings it was incumbent upon Buildsmart to lodge all relevant evidence in support of its application that it meets the financial requirements for registration. 92 The forecast provides that '[d]rawings' of $12,000 are expected to occur on 17 April, 15 May, 19 June and 17 July 2026. There is no further evidence regarding these amounts. The Board assumed, consistently with Mr Petrovski's evidence,19 that these amounts represent payments to Mr Petrovski in reduction of the sums he had loaned to Buildsmart. However, in its closing written submissions, Buildsmart stated these are payments to Mr Adams 'to compensate him for his services to' Buildsmart.20 However, it has not been explained: (a) if these payments are in the nature of wages to Mr Adams as the nominated supervisor, why those amounts were not recorded in the forecast as part of '[s]upervisor [w]ages' and whether this means there has been an undercalculation of Buildsmart's liability to pay superannuation and PAYG; and (b) if they are not wages, then the basis upon which Buildsmart is making payments to Mr Adams. 93 Our further observations in relation to this forecast are: (a) Most weeks are forecast to have a net inflow of money. Over the 18 weeks, it is forecast Buildsmart will have a total net inflow of approximately $176,178. (b) Buildsmart has not included a schedule linking the expected stages of construction of each project to the expected cash inflows and outflows. (c) It is not clear how the date of the expected inflows has been calculated, for example, date of expected completion of the relevant stage of construction, within seven days of issue of the invoice or at some other time. As observed above,21 not every client of Buildsmart has paid or is paying in a timely manner. 18 ACWS at para 23(a). 19 See para [63] above. 20 ACWS at para 23(k). 21 See para [71] - [79]. -- 21 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 22 (d) Buildsmart has not explained the basis of its calculations of the outflows directly related to construction. We are unable to ascertain whether the outflows are taken from Mr Petrovski's schedules of costs,22 Mr du Toit's schedules of costs or are calculated on some other basis. (e) Buildsmart does not appear to have included in its expected indirect outflows the cost of liquidated damages, nor liability to pay interest on loans provided by Mr and Ms Petrovski or Mr Adams. (f) General overheads total $18,649, over a period of 119 days. If extrapolated to a full year, the overheads are approximately $57,200. This appears low, in comparison to the overheads in the financial statements for the 2023 ($90,754), 2024 ($80,735) and 2025 financial years ($70,259). Particularly so, considering overheads in the financial statements are amounts reduced by calculations for depreciation. There is no information as to the basis on which the general overheads in the forecast were calculated. (g) 'Supervisor wages' of $14,000 are expected to be paid on 5 June and 31 July 2026. That is not consistent with payments of $14,449 to Mr Adams on 27 January, 6 February and 12 February 2026, recorded in a Buildsmart bank statement for the period 2 January to 2 April 2026. (h) Only one payment of legal fees is anticipated, on 10 April 2026. It is unclear if that is the final amount, or if Buildsmart should have anticipated an additional payment after the conclusion of the hearing on 23 April 2026 and the lodging of written closing submissions in May 2026. (i) It is not stated whether the amounts in the forecast are inclusive or exclusive of GST. It is unclear how the GST liability of $21,000 for the first quarter has been calculated. Particularly given the total net GST paid for the 2025 financial year was $18,285. 22 See para [32] above. -- 22 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 23 Capacity to raise further funds 94 It was uncontentious and we therefore accept Buildsmart does not own assets which could generate additional funds either by sale or as security for lending. 95 In December 2025, Mr Petrovski gave evidence that he would have access to the following funds: (a) $126,000 obtained through the restructure of a personal loan secured against his home; and (b) an inheritance of approximately $400,000 expected to be received no earlier than the middle of 2026. Loan restructure 96 Mr Petrovski said in his affidavit that from the restructure of the personal loan, he intended to lend 'at least $100,000' to Buildsmart if required.23 On 18 December 2025, Mr Petrovski said the loan would be advanced by the relevant financial institution in the near future. 97 Buildsmart did not lodge evidence of the personal loan to Mr and Ms Petrovski, nor an agreement for the on-lending of those funds to Buildsmart. 98 In evidence are various bank statements, most which do not address the relevant period. Buildsmart lodged what appears to be a report from accounting software listing bank transactions between 21 October 2025 and 1 April 2026. That report contains the following transactions which include in the description 'A Petrovski' or 'Aleksandar Petrovski': Date Monies Paid Date Monies Received 27 October $13,418.04 4 November $7,000.00 17 February $3,000.00 12 November $20,000.00 10 March $500.00 19 December $20,000.00 16 March $500.00 29 December $10,000.00 16 March $10,000.00 7 January $15,000.00 19 March $500.00 9 January $50.00 12 January $5,000.00 15 January $10,000.00 19 January $5,000.00 22 January $5,000.00 22 January $5,000.00 23 Exhibit 1, page 128. -- 23 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 24 27 January $10,000.00 5 February $500.00 Total $27,918.04 $112,550.00 99 There is no evidence regarding the source of the funds paid by Mr Petrovski to Buildsmart, nor the reason for those payments. 100 It is possible the source of the funds was the restructure of the personal loan referred to at paragraph [97] above. If so, it would appear further advances by Mr Petrovski from the restructure are unlikely - on the basis of his evidence regarding the loan restructure and that no further advances were made after 5 February 2026. 101 The solicitor for Buildsmart wrote in correspondence filed with the Tribunal on 2 April 2026 that Mr and Ms Petrovski 'do not have any further funds available to lend' to Buildsmart.24 Whilst this correspondence does not constitute evidence, it may be considered consistent with the above evidence. Inheritance 102 We place no reliance upon Buildsmart receiving funds via Mr Petrovski's anticipated inheritance because: (a) There is no evidence of the value of the estate, Mr Petrovski's entitlement to an inheritance, the value of his share or the executor's estimation of when distribution to the beneficiaries will be effected. (b) It is speculation to say, if or when Mr Petrovski receives an inheritance, he will lend some or all those funds to Buildsmart. He is under no obligation to do so. Depending on the circumstances which then exist, it may be imprudent for him to do so. 103 Additionally, Mr Petrovski gave evidence that Mr Adams had provided a loan facility. This will be addressed below.25 24 Exhibit 10, page 2. 25 See paras [109] - [114]. -- 24 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 25 Michael Adams Connection to Buildsmart 104 Mr Adams holds the following roles in relation to Buildsmart: (a) nominated supervisor (Mr Petrovski is not a registered building practitioner or registered building contractor); (b) employee; (c) client (Mr and Ms Adams own the site located at The Vines); and (d) lender. 105 Furthermore, Mr Petrovski states that he and Mr Adams have an agreement that, assuming the company is able to renew its builder registration, Mr Adams will be brought in as a director and shareholder of Buildsmart. 106 Mr Petrovski stated that Mr Adams had performed more work for Buildsmart than the wages figures indicated. He said Mr Adams had been willing to do that in expectation of becoming a director and shareholder of Buildsmart. Mr Adams is expected to purchase that interest in Buildsmart, but there will be some set-off on account of the work he had performed without payment. 107 Mr Petrovski said he had not undertaken any enquiries regarding Mr Adams' financial capacity to purchase an interest in Buildsmart. He understands through general conversations that Mr Adams has substantial financial resources as a result of selling a property for almost $1 million. 108 Mr Petrovski said these arrangements with Mr Adams are not in writing. He said that if for any reason these plans did not eventuate, there was no likelihood Mr Adams might want some financial compensation in relation to his unpaid work. Lending arrangements 109 On 8 December 2025 Mr Adams wrote a letter to Mr Petrovski which stated he was willing to provide Buildsmart with a loan facility to a maximum of $200,000 on the following conditions: (a) interest of 5% per annum on amounts advanced; -- 25 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 26 (b) monthly payments to be interest only for the first 12 months and thereafter interest and principal; (c) Mr and Ms Petrovski provide security which could be registered against the title of their property; and (d) a written loan agreement be prepared. 110 Mr Petrovski gave evidence that, as at 18 December 2025, Mr Adams had advanced $35,000 to Buildsmart. Mr Petrovski stated Mr Adams' loan would be secured by a personal guarantee and/or upon real estate, though not by means of a second mortgage. He said there was no written loan agreement, though that was intended. 111 On 3 April 2026 Buildsmart lodged a document described as a loan statement which states: (a) advances were made by Mr Adams on 12, 15 and 16 December 2025 and on 9 February 2026; (b) the total sum borrowed from Mr Adams is $45,000; (c) interest is payable at 10% per annum; and (d) Buildsmart has made no repayments. 112 The author of the loan statement has not been disclosed. 113 There is no evidence of a written loan agreement or security. The written closing submissions of Buildsmart state the existence of a loan facility of $200,000 is proven by the loan statement. This suggests there is no written loan agreement or security. 114 Clearly there are inconsistencies: (a) Mr Adams' letter suggests a formal loan agreement and registered security were a condition of providing the funds. However, the loan statement suggests he made the first advance only days later and has continued to make advances in the absence of a written agreement and security. (b) The letter states interest was to be paid at 5% per annum but the loan statement refers to interest at 10% per annum. -- 26 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 27 (c) The letter states there were to be monthly repayments, but the loan statement indicates that between December 2025 and April 2026 no repayments have been made. 115 Beyond Mr Adams' letter expressing a willingness to lend $200,000, there is no evidence he had or has the funds to lend. There is no evidence he continues to be willing to make further payments. In the absence of a signed agreement, he appears to have no obligation to lend further funds. The Vines 116 A construction contract dated 10 July 2025 was signed by Mr and Ms Adams and Mr Petrovski on behalf of Buildsmart. The works are described as a double storey residence, and provides for ten progress payments, from deposit to practical completion. However, the November 2025 WIP states The Vines project is only being taken to lock up. This is repeated in the January 2026 and April 2026 WIPs and in Mr Petrovski's written witness statement. 117 Mr Petrovski explained this by saying that from a cost perspective, Buildsmart is taking the construction to lock up. From that point the owners (Mr and Ms Adams) will manage and pay the trades people. However, Buildsmart will continue to have a supervisory role until completion. 118 In response to the suggestion this sounded like licence lending, Mr Petrovski said Mr Adams holds licences as a building practitioner and building contractor. Mr Petrovski was asked why Mr Adams did not then complete construction under his own name, but Mr Petrovski had no answer. Our comments 119 Mr Adams' relationship with Buildsmart is unusual and has not been adequately explained. There is a lack of documentation and inconsistencies in the evidence. Accordingly, we have reservations as to the reliability of what we have been told regarding arrangements between Mr Adams, Buildsmart and Mr Petrovski. Consideration 120 We do not consider the forecast to be reliable. Without the supporting documents and a list of the assumptions, inclusions and -- 27 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 28 exclusions which underpin to the forecast, we are left with too many unanswered questions. 121 The below table compares the income Buildsmart expects to derive from completing construction on the Treeby, Cloverdale A and Singleton sites26 with the cost to complete construction as estimated by Mr Costanzo. Site Total payment claims remaining Costanzo estimated cost to complete Profit/loss Treeby $202,432.00 $356,799.00 ($154,367.00) Cloverdale A $140,002.00 $210,569.00 ($70,567.00) Singleton $294,788.16 $588,214.00 ($293,425.84) ($518,359.84) 122 Mr Du Toit did not estimate the cost of completing construction. We have considered the stage of construction of each site provided in the January 2026 WIP and deleted those parts of his estimate which appear to relate to completed works. Mr Du Toit's estimate in relation to Singleton included allowances for costs, overheads and GST, whilst his estimates for Treeby and Cloverdale A did not. For consistency with Mr Costanzo's figures, we have ascertained Mr Du Toit's estimates excluding costs, overheads and GST, deleted completed works and then added 10% for costs and overheads. Site Total payment claims remaining Du Toit estimated cost to complete Profit/loss Treeby $202,432.00 $289,142.17 ($86,710.17) Cloverdale A $140,002.00 $187,524.46 ($47,522.46) Singleton $294,788.16 $475,050.69 ($180,262.53) ($314,495.16) 123 The parties selected the Treeby, Cloverdale A and Singleton sites for assessment by the quantity surveyors on the basis these properties were considered to be representative of the projects identified in the lists of works in progress. 124 We therefore apply the above figures to all of the projects by calculating the average loss per project in relation to the Treeby, 26 As stated in the April 2026 WIP. -- 28 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 29 Cloverdale A and Singleton sites and then multiplying the average figure by eight, which is the total of the sites apparently under construction in the April 2026 WIP.27 125 Using Mr Du Toit's estimations, we calculate the average loss as $104,831.72 per project, which means a loss of $838,653.76 across eight projects. Using Mr Costanzo's estimations, we calculate the average loss as $172,786.61 per project and thus a total loss of $1,382,292.88 in relation to eight projects. 126 We note Buildsmart stated all projects would have reached practical completion (and thus these costs would have been incurred in full) by 30 August 2026. 127 If we were to accept the forecast as accurate, Buildsmart will incur overheads and statutory outgoings of $169,749 over 119 days to 31 July 2026. Which could mean $212,542.86 over 149 days to 30 August 2026. 128 Buildsmart may have the following resources to meet these costs (ignoring other likely costs): (a) cash at bank of approximately $32,619.84, as it stood on 2 April 2026; (b) payments by trade debtors of $212,749.17; and (c) the remainder of the loan funds from Mr Adams, being $155,000 (assuming the funds were advanced). 129 Therefore, on a rough calculation, Buildsmart may have financial resources of approximately $400,370 to meet outgoings of approximately $1,051,196 (based on Mr Du Toit's estimations and not including other costs). The disparity between financial resources and outgoings would be greater if Mr Costanzo's estimates were applied. Conclusion 130 For the reasons described above, we are not satisfied Buildsmart has the capacity to meet debts as and when they fall due. 131 Therefore, we must dismiss the application of Buildsmart and affirm the decision of the Board. 27 See para [82] above. -- 29 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 30 Orders The Tribunal orders: 1. The decision of the respondent made on 14 October 2025 to refuse the applicant's application for registration as a building service practitioner under the Building Services (Registration) Act 2011 (WA) is affirmed. 2. The stay (of the operation of the decision of the respondent made on 14 October 2025) ordered by the Tribunal in this proceeding on 23 October 2025 is lifted. -- 30 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 31 Annexure 1 Work in progress as at 31 January 2025 Contract Contract date Time to complete from commencement Date of commencement Estimated completion date Current stage of works Contract value incl variations Contract amount not yet invoiced Thornlie A 10/12/2020 ? 6/4/2023 1/4/2025 Slab down $202,609 150,000 Thornlie B 11/12/2020 ? 6/4/2023 1/4/2025 Slab down $201.019 150,000 Treeby (residential, fixed price) 30/3/2021 260 working days 8/4/2023 1/8/2025 Slab down $305,481 $280,000 Scarborough 2/8/2022 ? 10/10/2022 1/5/2025 Lock up 663.520 159,245 Bushmead (residential, fixed price) 19/11/2023 200 working days 11/3/2024 1/8/2025 Slab down $360,503 $265,100 Victoria Park A (commercial, cost plus) 27/3/2024 500 working days 19/8/2024 1/8/2025 Upper floor roof cover $800,000 $654,302 Victoria Park B 4/7/2024 ? 10/12/2024 1/4/2025 Slab down 99,000 50,000 Beckenham (residential) 9/9/2024 TBA TBA TBA Preliminary documents $58,620 $21,120 -- 31 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 32 Annexure 2 Work in progress as at 16 November 2025 Contract Contract date Time to complete from commencement Date of commencement Estimated completion date Current stage of works Contract value incl variations Contract amount not yet invoiced Treeby (residential, fixed price) 30/3/2021 260 working days 8/4/2023 30/4/2026 Slab down $305,481 $280,000 Bushmead (residential, fixed price) 19/11/2023 200 working days 11/3/2024 30/4/2026 Slab down $360,503 $265,100 Victoria Park A (commercial, cost plus) 27/3/2024 500 working days 19/8/2024 1/8/2025 Upper floor roof cover $800,000 $654,302 Beckenham (residential) 9/9/2024 TBA TBA TBA Preliminary documents $58,620 $21,120 Innaloo A (residential, fixed price) 10/11/2025 250 working days 1/8/2025 30/4/2026 Slab down $269,968 $216,105 Innaloo B (residential, fixed price) 10/11/2025 250 working days 1/8/2025 30/4/2026 Slab down $275,773 $220,750 Mt Lawley (residential) 28/4/2025 130 working days TBA TBA Deposit/building permit $10,000 $5,000 Singleton (residential, fixed price) 7/4/2025 250 working days 10/7/2025 6/4/2026 Wall frames $491,312 $393,050 Cloverdale A (residential, fixed price) 10/7/2025 260 working days 26/10/2025 30/6/2026 Slab down $316,451 $254,013 Cloverdale B (residential, fixed price) 21/4/2025 260 working days 26/10/2025 30/6/2026 Slab down $316,451 $254,013 The Vines (Residential, lock up only, fixed price) 10/7/2025 380 working days 20/8/2025 30/6/2026 Slab down $605,000 $505,175 Cooloongup (residential, fixed price) 21/7/2025 TBA TBA TBA Preliminary documents $4,000 Nil Two Rocks (residential, fixed price) 10/9/2025 TBA TBA TBA Preliminary documents $42,270 Nil -- 32 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 33 Annexure 3 Work in progress as at 21 January 2026 Contract Contract date Time to complete from commencement Date of commencement Estimated completion date Current stage of works Treeby (residential, fixed price) 30/3/2021 260 working days 8/4/2023 30/7/2026 Slab down Bushmead (residential, fixed price) 19/11/2023 200 working days 11/3/2024 30/7/2026 Slab down Victoria Park A (commercial, cost plus) 27/3/2024 500 working days 19/8/2024 1/5/2026 Ground floor wall cladding 90% Beckenham (residential) 9/9/2024 TBA TBA TBA Preliminary documents Innaloo A (residential, fixed price) 10/11/2025 250 working days 1/8/2025 30/7/2026 Brickwork plate height 90% Innaloo B (residential, fixed price) 10/11/2025 250 working days 1/8/2025 30/7/2026 Brickwork plate height 0% Mt Lawley (residential) 28/4/2025 130 working days TBA TBA Deposit/building permit Singleton (residential, fixed price) 7/4/2025 250 working days 10/7/2025 6/7/2026 Wall frames manufacturing Cloverdale A (residential, fixed price) 10/7/2025 260 working days 26/10/2025 30/7/2026 Brickwork plate height Cloverdale B (residential, fixed price) 21/4/2025 260 working days 26/10/2025 30/7/2026 Brickwork plate height The Vines (Residential, lock up only, fixed price) 10/7/2025 380 working days 20/8/2025 30/6/2026 Upper floor slab reo -- 33 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 34 Annexure 4 Work in progress as at 22 April 2026 Contract Contract date Time to complete from commencement Date of commencement Estimated completion date Current stage of works Treeby 30/3/2021 260 working days 8/4/2023 30/8/2026 Brick plate height – timber onsite Bushmead 19/11/2023 200 working days 11/3/2024 30/8/2026 Brick plate height – timber onsite Victoria Park A 27/3/2024 500 working days 19/8/2024 30/6/2026 Lock up Beckenham 9/9/2024 TBA TBA TBA Preliminary documents Innaloo A 10/11/2025 250 working days 1/8/2025 30/7/2026 Roof frame complete Innaloo B 10/11/2025 250 working days 1/8/2025 30/7/2026 Roof frame complete Mt Lawley 28/4/2025 130 working days TBA TBA Deposit/building permit Singleton 7/4/2025 250 working days 10/7/2025 6/7/2026 Wall frames and roof frames Install Cloverdale A 10/7/2025 260 working days 26/10/2025 30/7/2026 Roof cover complete Cloverdale B 21/4/2025 260 working days 26/10/2025 30/7/2026 Roof cover complete The Vines 10/7/2025 380 working days 20/8/2025 30/7/2026 Upper floor brickwork to start Thornlie A 10/12/2020 - 20/3/2023 30/7/2026 Roof frame complete -- 34 of 35 -- [2026] WASAT 90 Page 35 I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal. MS N Oldfield, MEMBER 31 JULY 2026 -- 35 of 35 --