MOUSAVI and LALLI-CAFINI [2026] WASAT 97

[2026] WASAT 97 Page 1 JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : BUILDING SERVICES (COMPLAINT RESOLUTION AND ADMINISTRATION) ACT 2011 (WA) CITATION : MOUSAVI and LALLI-CAFINI [2026] WASAT 97 MEMBER : MS N OLDFIELD, MEMBER MR S BURNS, SESSIONAL MEMBER HEARD : 4-8 MAY 2026 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS LODGED 5 JUNE 2026 DELIVERED : 20 AUGUST 2026 FILE NO/S : CC 1539 of 2022 BETWEEN : SAM MOUSAVI Applicant AND VITTORIO LALLI-CAFINI Respondent FILE NO/S : CC 776 of 2023 BETWEEN : VITTORIO LALLI-CAFINI First Applicant AMANDA LALLI-CAFINI Second Applicant AND SAM MOUSAVI Respondent -- 1 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 2 FILE NO/S : CC 766 of 2024 BETWEEN : VITTORIO LALLI-CAFINI Applicant AND SAM MOUSAVI Respondent Catchwords: Home building work contract (HBWC) complaint - Unpaid balance of invoice - Multiple quotes and invoices - Alleged oral variation to avoid tax - Work outside of written quotation - Turns on own facts Building service complaints - Bathroom tiling - Condition of works at handover - Breakdown in relationship - Turns on own facts Legislation: Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), s 3, s 3(1), s 5(1), s 5(2), s 11(1)(d), s 16(1), s 38(1), s 41(2), s 43(1) Home Building Contracts Act 1991 (WA), s 3, s 3(1), s 17 Home Building Contracts Regulations 1991 (WA), reg 2A State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 15(1) State Administrative Tribunal Rules 2004 (WA), r 39B Result: Applications partly successful Category: B -- 2 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 3 Representation: CC 1539 of 2022 Counsel: Applicant : In Person Respondent : Mr W Vogt & Mr B Sasson Solicitors: Applicant : N/A Respondent : Vogt Legal CC 776 of 2023 Counsel: First Applicant : Mr W Vogt & Mr B Sasson Second Applicant : Mr W Vogt & Mr B Sasson Respondent : In Person Solicitors: First Applicant : Vogt Legal Second Applicant : Vogt Legal Respondent : N/A CC 766 of 2024 Counsel: Applicant : Mr W Vogt & Mr B Sasson Respondent : In Person Solicitors: Applicant : Vogt Legal Respondent : N/A -- 3 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 4 Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Gemmill Homes Pty Ltd v Sanders [2018] WASC 179 Owners of Island Apartments Strata Plan 52597 and Pindan Pty Ltd [2018] WASAT 2 -- 4 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 5 REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: Introduction 1 Vittorio Lalli-Cafini and Amanda Lalli-Cafini engaged Sam Mousavi to renovate two bathrooms and a water closet. A dispute arose which resulted in complaints being made by each party against the other. 2 In 2022 Mr Mousavi lodged a complaint with the Building Commissioner seeking that Mr Lalli-Cafini pay the balance of an invoice. In 2023, Mr and Mrs Lalli-Cafini made a complaint to the Building Commissioner alleging the renovation works were defective. Then in 2024 Mr Lalli-Cafini made a further complaint regarding defective works. 3 On the basis of the reasons which follow, we have made findings partly in favour of Mr Mousavi and partly in favour of Mr and Mrs Lalli-Cafini. Issues to be determined 4 In relation to Mr Mousavi's complaint as to a breach of contract, the issues to be determined are as follows: (a) Is there a home building work contract between the parties? (b) If the answer to (a) is yes, what sum is Mr Lalli-Cafini obliged to pay to Mr Mousavi pursuant to that contract? (c) Of the amount Mr Lalli-Cafini is obliged to pay, is any balance owing which can be the subject of a HBWC remedy order? 5 In relation to each complaint relating to defects in building work, the issues to be determined are as follows: (a) Did Mr Mousavi perform a regulated building service? (b) If so, did he carry out that building service in a proper and proficient manner, or was that work faulty or unsatisfactory? (c) If the work was not to the required standard, what was the appropriate building remedy order? -- 5 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 6 Legislative framework Contractual complaints 6 An owner may complain to the Building Commissioner about a breach of a home building work contract - s 5(2) of the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA) (BSCRA Act) and s 17 of the Home Building Contracts Act 1991 (WA) (HBC Act). This does not include breaches which could be the subject of a building service complaint. 7 A complaint pursuant to s 5(2) is called a HBWC complaint - s 3 BSCRA Act. 8 The Building Commissioner may refer the complaint to the Tribunal - s 11(1)(d) BSCRA Act. 9 The Tribunal may make a HBWC remedy order if it is satisfied such an order is justified - s 43(1) BSCRA Act. Or it can decline to make a HBWC order. 10 A HBWC remedy order may include an order that a party pay a specified amount in accordance with the contract or specified compensation for loss or damage caused by a breach of the contract - s 41(2) BSCRA Act. 11 A home building work contract is defined to relevantly include a contract for the performance of home building work where the contract price is $7,500 or more, provided the price is not $500,000 or more - s 3 BSCRA Act, s 3(1) HBC Act and reg 2A Home Building Contracts Regulations 1992 (WA). 12 Home building work is defined to include the whole or part of the work in altering, improving or repairing a dwelling - s 3 BSCRA Act and s 3(1) HBC Act. Building service complaints 13 An owner may complain to the Building Commissioner that a regulated building service has not been carried out in a proper or proficient manner or that it was faulty or unsatisfactory - s 5(1) BSCRA Act. This is called a building service complaint - s 3 BSCRA Act. -- 6 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 7 14 The Building Commissioner may refer the complaint to the Tribunal - s 11(1)(d) BSCRA Act. 15 The Tribunal may make or decline to make a building remedy order - s 38(1) BSCRA Act. If the Tribunal is satisfied the relevant regulated building service has not been carried out in a proper or proficient manner or that it was faulty or unsatisfactory it is required to make a building remedy order.1 16 The approach of the Tribunal in determining whether work was carried out in a proper and proficient manner or was faulty or unsatisfactory is well established. For example, Owners of Island Apartments Strata Plan 52597 and Pindan Pty Ltd [2018] WASAT 2 at [28] - [35]. It is relevant here to note: (a) The BSCRA Act covers a broad range of deficiencies in building work. (b) Work may be proper and proficient despite a departure from strict compliance with manufacturer's recommendations or the National Construction Code. (c) The Tribunal should be cautious in ordering remedial work where there is no breach of contract and the owner has not demonstrated a genuine adverse effect from the building works. State Administrative Tribunal Act 17 Complaints which are referred to the Tribunal by the Building Commissioner are within the Tribunal's original jurisdiction - s 15(1) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act). The Tribunal is to deal with such matters in accordance with both the SAT Act and the BSCRA Act - s 16(1) SAT Act. 18 Where experts confer and produce a joint statement, that joint statement is to be admitted into evidence unless there is an order to the contrary. Where the joint statement is admitted into evidence, no party can adduce any evidence inconsistent with matters on which the experts agree, unless the Tribunal allows - r 39B State Administrative Tribunal Rules 2004 (WA). 1 Gemmill Homes Pty Ltd v Sanders [2018] WASC 179 at [133] and [134]. -- 7 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 8 Material facts 19 Our findings on the balance of probabilities regarding the relevant factual background are as follows. Unless indicated otherwise, they are agreed or uncontentious. Commencement of the works 20 Mr and Mrs Lalli-Cafini reside at the relevant house (the site). 21 Mr Mousavi carries out a business of tiling and bathroom renovations. English is not Mr Mousavi's first language. 22 At all relevant times in 2021, David Tighe worked for Mr Mousavi to gain practical experience after having successfully completed a Certificate III in Wall and Floor Tiling. 23 In or about early March 2021, Mr Lalli-Cafini telephoned Mr Mousavi to request a quote for a bathroom renovation. Mr Mousavi attended the house on or about 8 March 2021. Mr Lalli-Cafini showed him two bathrooms and a water closet.2 They discussed ideas for the renovation, including design and materials. 24 On 11 March 2021 Mr Mousavi sent Mr Lalli-Cafini by SMS a quotation for the renovation of two bathrooms and a water closet at a total cost of $43,615.3 In an SMS immediately following the quotation, Mr Mousavi requested a deposit of $300 and a further deposit of 10% after the quotation was 'finalised'.4 He directed Mr Lalli-Cafini to showrooms at which selections could be made. 25 Mr Lalli-Cafini paid Mr Mousavi $300 on 11 March 2021 and sent confirmation of that payment to Mr Mousavi. 26 On or about 4 April 2021 Mr Lalli-Cafini finalised his selections. Later the same day, Mr Mousavi sent a quotation, revised on the basis of those selections (second quote). The total price was $46,838. The second quote requested a 30% deposit (less the $300 already paid) before commencement of work. 27 Mr Lalli-Cafini paid the sum of $13,751.40 in two instalments over 4 and 5 April 2021. 2 In the materials the room containing a separate toilet was described both as a water closet and powder room. We consider water closet to be the more accurate descriptor. For consistency we have used that term throughout this decision even where the author of a document has used the alternative description. 3 Unless otherwise specified, all monetary figures are inclusive of GST. 4 Exhibit 1, page 34. -- 8 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 9 28 The materials for the renovation arrived at the site in early to mid- May 2021. Mr Mousavi and Mr Tighe began work at the house in the main bathroom on 24 May 2021. 29 The removal of tiles and reapplication of waterproofing was completed on 7 June 2021. Mr Lalli-Cafini paid a further $10,000 on 15 June 2021. 30 The renovation of the main bathroom and water closet was completed on 7 July 2021 by the installation of the shower screen. Mr Lalli-Cafini sent Mr Mousavi a text message the same day containing two photographs of the bathroom and stating, '10 out of 10 Sam'.5 31 On 8 September 2021 at 7.04 pm Mr Mousavi sent Mr Lalli-Cafini an amended quotation dated 5 September 2021 (the September quote). It contained variations to the scope of works, increased the total price to $48,818 and recorded the amount already paid so that the stated balance was $24,766.60. 32 Immediately following the sending of the September quote, there was the following exchange of messages:6 (Mr Lalli-Cafini) (Mr Mousavi) Cash?? And why the 2K increase Please check, It's in Variation part written. Allegations regarding cash Mr and Mrs Lalli-Cafini 33 Mr Lalli-Cafini alleges that: (a) Mr Mousavi and Mr Tighe returned to the house on 5 September 2021 to start work on the ensuite bathroom. 5 Hearing Book 1, page 41. 6 Hearing Book 1, page 43. -- 9 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 10 (b) On 5 September 2021 he asked Mr Mousavi if there was anything that could be done about the price of the works in exchange for payment in cash. (c) Mr Mousavi agreed. They sat in the study with a copy of the September quote and calculated the GST component. They agreed the discount would only apply to the renovations to the ensuite bathroom, so that only half of the GST would be discounted. (d) The calculations were handwritten on a copy of the September quote.7 They calculated half of the GST as being $2,215 and that was the sum to be discounted from the total price of $48,818. (e) They agreed the balance payable for the renovation works was $22,551.60 and it would be paid in cash. 34 An image of the handwritten calculations are below.8 Mr Lalli-Cafini alleges that he wrote the figures '24766.60' and '4430' and Mr Mousavi wrote the two instances of '2215' and '22551.60'. 35 Mr Lalli-Cafini alleges he made the following cash payments to Mr Mousavi: (a) $5,000 on 10 September 2021; (b) $5,000 on 13 September 2021; (c) $5,000 on 17 September 2021; (d) $5,000 on 24 September 2021; and 7 Hearing Book 1, page 143. 8 Hearing Book 1, page 143. -- 10 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 11 (e) $3,200 on 11 October 2021. 36 In evidence are documents which Mr Lalli-Cafini alleges are bank statements which prove the above cash payments. Each document has been altered so that only the above transactions are visible. Each is described as 'ATM/EFTPOS withdrawal'.9 So much detail is redacted, it is difficult to be satisfied these are bank statements and that none of the information relevant to these proceedings has been altered or removed. Mr Mousavi 37 Mr Mousavi alleges that: (a) Work on the ensuite bathroom began on 25 August 2021. (b) Before work commenced on the ensuite bathroom, Mr Lalli-Cafini called him and asked about paying cash. Mr Mousavi said that he could pay any way he wanted, but there would be no difference in the price. (c) On 8 September 2021 he sent Mr Lalli-Cafini the September quote which addressed variations discussed during the works and the remaining balance. (d) In response Mr Lalli-Cafini sent a text message asking about making a cash payment. (e) He did not have the conversation in the study as alleged by Mr Lalli-Cafini and did not agree to discount the price. (f) Mr Lalli-Cafini made a number of cash payments, and each time Mr Mousavi sent a text message to confirm receipt. 38 Mr Mousavi states that he received the following cash payments from Mr Lalli-Cafini: (a) $5,000 on 10 September 2021; (b) $5,000 on 14 September 2021; (c) $5,000 on 20 September 2021; and (d) $8,200 on 21 October 2021. 9 Exhibit 1, pages 155 - 157. -- 11 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 12 39 In evidence are copies of SMS messages between Mr Mousavi and Mr Lalli-Cafini which depict that on 10 September 2021, 14 September 2021 and 20 September 2021 Mr Mousavi sent text messages confirming the receipt of $5,000. Our findings 40 It is agreed and we are satisfied that in September and October 2021 Mr Lalli-Cafini paid in cash to Mr Mousavi a total of $23,200. 41 We are not satisfied the so-called bank statements prove the dates on which Mr Lalli-Cafini made payment. Firstly, the documents have been significantly altered. Secondly, even accepting the truth of those documents, withdrawal from a bank account does not necessarily equate to the physical handing of the cash to Mr Mousavi - the two events could occur on different days. 42 We decline to make a finding as to the dates on which the payments were made because it is not necessary to determine the issues in dispute. 43 We are not satisfied Mr Lalli-Cafini and Mr Mousavi agreed to discount the price of the work by avoiding the GST for the following reasons. Firstly, the September quote, which Mr Mousavi sent to Mr Lalli-Cafini on 8 September 2021 is inconsistent with the agreement alleged to have been reached on 5 September 2021. Secondly, Mr Mousavi's documentation of the cash received appears to us inconsistent with an agreement to evade tax though cash payments. 44 Even if the evidence established the parties had made a verbal agreement to discount the price on the basis of using cash to evade tax, such an agreement would be illegal. We are not persuaded it would be appropriate to enforce the terms of an illegal agreement. The story continues 45 On 23 September 2021, Mr Lalli-Cafini sent a photograph to Mr Mousavi of a mark on the aluminium trim to a window in the main bathroom. Mr Lalli-Cafini wrote, 'Sam that is not going to come out. It appears to have a co[a]ting on it'.10 Mr Mousavi sent out a painter and photographs taken by that painter on 4 October 2021 do not show the mark upon the window trim. 10 Exhibit 5, photo 2 in folder 'Grout Residue Evidence'. -- 12 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 13 46 In late September or early October 2021, Mr Lalli-Cafini asked Mr Mousavi to paint the ceilings in the main bathroom, ensuite bathroom and separate toilet. They agreed the additional cost would be $990. 47 In October 2021, Mr Lalli-Cafini made a complaint to the Building Commissioner in relation to Mr Mousavi's work (2021 complaint). There were six items of complaint. 48 On 7 October 2021 fluid came up the ensuite shower drain and flooded the ensuite shower. At 8.20 pm that night Mr Lalli-Cafini sent a message to Mr Mousavi demanding he arrange for a plumber to attend the house by 8.00 am the following day. Mr Mousavi replied at 6.36 am the next day, stating he had just seen the message, had contacted a plumber 'Sam' and gave Mr Lalli-Cafini Sam's name and number. Mr Lalli-Cafini responded with a threat if the plumber did not arrive by 8.30 am. 49 Mr Lalli-Cafini called Sam between 3.00 pm and 4.00 pm that afternoon and was informed Sam's vehicle had broken down and he could not attend. He telephoned Mr Mousavi who advised him he had not been aware Sam was unable to attend, and promised to organise another plumber. 50 Mr Mousavi alleges during this telephone conversation: (a) Mr Lalli-Cafini stated that if Mr Mousavi's plumber did not come, 'I'm going to take it out of your bill'.11 (b) He told Mr Lalli-Cafini he did not think it was his problem but he would arrange a plumber, come out and supervise and take responsibility. But if it was not his fault, then Mr Lalli-Cafini needed to pay the cost. (c) Mr Lalli-Cafini agreed. 51 Mr Lalli-Cafini denies this conversation took place. He does agree that Mr Mousavi told him he would be coming to the site as well as the plumber. 52 Mr Mousavi arranged for a plumber called Omar to attend and he arrived at the site at approximately 4.20 pm 8 October 2021. Mr Mousavi arrived approximately 10 minutes afterwards. 11 ts 419, 7 May 2026. -- 13 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 14 53 Omar identified and repaired the fault, which is not alleged to have been caused by Mr Mousavi. Mr Lalli-Cafini paid Omar $350 in cash for his work. 54 Mr Mousavi said he left the site at around 8.30 pm or 9.00 pm. Mr Lalli-Cafini disagreed, he said Omar was at the site for less than an hour because it was still light when Omar was leaving. When asked why Omar's fee was $350, Mr Lalli-Cafini stated it was after normal working hours. 55 Mr Lalli-Cafini alleges that on 6 October 2021, believing the renovations were almost complete, he spoke to Mr Mousavi about the final payment. He said there was a balance of $2,551.60 plus $990 in relation to the ceiling painting and so proposed making a final cash payment of $3,200. Mr Mousavi agreed and this arrangement was confirmed by the following exchange of messages:12 [Mr Lalli-Cafini] [Mr Mousavi] [6 October 2021] $3200 right Sam?? When do you want it [7 October 2021] You mate I wont be here friday shooting. You wanna come Hey Vic, the payment is right thanks. [sic] 56 Mr Mousavi agrees the above text message were sent. He does not agree with the meaning ascribed to them by Mr Lalli-Cafini. It is not clear what Mr Mousavi says is the correct meaning. 57 On 18 October 2021 Mr Lalli-Cafini sent Mr Mousavi a photograph of the same window referred to in paragraph [45] above. Mr Lalli-Cafini wrote, '[t]his is what happened when [I] cleaned that corner with spray an[d] wipe Sam. The paint just wiped off'.13 12 Exhibit 1, page 149. 13 Exhibit 5, photo 9 in folder 'Grout Residue Evidence'. -- 14 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 15 58 On 21 October 2021, Mr Mousavi sent Mr Lalli-Cafini a message stating:14 Hi Vic, I looked at your payment balance and you have outstanding balance. You haven't paid the GST yet, as I mentioned[.] We'll give you the receipt when you ma[k]e the complete payment either cash or bank transfer. Regards Sam 59 Mr Lalli-Cafini replied the following day as follows:15 So Sam you want it to be like that no problem mate. I did[n't] pay the gst. [You're] the one that suggested cash[,] so no receipt from money you took from me. Let me tell you something mate. I think the job is substandard and [I'm] going to find who regulates your industry and present my case to them. BTW mate I have kept all msn messages, I don't pay gst so [I'm] guessing you paid zero tax on any of that money. Good for you man [Let's] see how you go with the ATO 60 In the evening of 21 October 2021, Mr Mousavi sent Mr Lalli-Cafini a further quotation dated 10 October 2021 (October quote). It recorded the agreed variation in relation to ceiling painting, calculated the total cost as $49,808 (being $48,818 plus $990), the amount paid as $47,251.40 and the outstanding balance as $2,446.60. 61 Mr Lalli-Cafini replied (apparently immediately) with, 'Man I give up. [I'm] just going to post photos on [F]acebook [and] let people make [up] their own mind[s]'.16 62 Mr Mousavi attended the site on 22 October 2021. Mr Mousavi describes this as a meeting for the purposes of 'job handover'.17 On the other hand, Mr Lalli-Cafini's evidence is that approximately a week after the work had been completed, he noticed issues regarding the ensuite shower not draining properly, chipped tiles in the ensuite and paint coming off the metal trim of a window when he cleaned it. 14 Exhibit 1, page 51. 15 Exhibit 1, page 52. 16 Exhibit 2, page 304. 17 Exhibit 2, page 242. -- 15 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 16 He raised those issues with Mr Mousavi and as a result Mr Mousavi attended the site on 22 October 2021. 63 At 12.42 pm on 22 October 2021, Mr Mousavi sent the following SMS to Mr Lalli-Cafini:18 Hi Vic, We are confirming regarding to your inquiry and our inspection today: 1- Ensuite shower floor [does] have [a slope] and it's been checked and verified by you. 2- Some of the rough edge tiles around the windows is because has been cut with grinder and it's not factory cut [sic]. 3- The top [a]luminium trims in the bathroom's window which you scrub it earlier, we'll send the painter to spray it for you soon. Please confirm above that you are satisfied with the final inspection and the results so I can organise the painter. Regards Sam 64 Mr Lalli-Cafini sent the following reply:19 Only problem is with point 3. I didn't scrub it[.] I hit it with spray and wipe and wiped it with a soft cloth. Cheers Vic 65 To which Mr Mousavi replied, 'I meant before then, However I'll send the painter. Cheers'.20 66 On 26 December 2021, Mr Lalli-Cafini sent the following SMS to Mr Mousavi:21 If you think this is over. When I have finished with you at the [B]uilding and [E]nergy [C]ommission. Think again. This is just the start Sam. You should never have gone about attacking my character. All the worst to you Sam got [sic] the new year[.] 18 Exhibit 2, pages 216 - 217. 19 Exhibit 2, page 217. 20 Exhibit 2, page 217. 21 Exhibit 2, page 298. -- 16 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 17 67 On 7 February 2022 the Building Commissioner issued a proposed building remedy order in relation to the 2021 complaint (PBRO). Mr Lalli-Cafini stated he did not agree with the proposed orders. Mr Mousavi stated he contacted Mr Lalli-Cafini on 9 February 2022 to discuss carrying out the proposed works, but Mr Lalli-Cafini rejected the offer and said he wanted a monetary remedy. These matters appear to be uncontentious and we accept them as correct. 68 On 30 May 2022 Mr Lalli-Cafini sent a message to Mr Mousavi stating, '[g]ive me a $ figure that I am happy with for that pathetic job you did and I will go away'.22 There was no reply from Mr Mousavi. 69 On 1 June 2022 Mr Lalli-Cafini sent Mr Mousavi a photograph of Mr Mousavi and his son at what looks like a shooting range. Mr Mousavi's son is holding a rifle in the prone position whilst Mr Mousavi provides guidance. The photograph is accompanied by, 'Hmmm Wonder if this of interest to the cops …'.23 70 Mr Mousavi replied later the same day, asking Mr Lalli-Cafini to stop threatening him. Mr Mousavi made it clear in the hearing and we accept that Mr Mousavi and his family felt disturbed and threatened by the messages of Mr Lalli-Cafini, particularly his sending a photograph of Mr Mousavi's then primary-school aged son. 71 On 3 June 2022 Mr Mousavi sent to Mr Lalli-Cafini invoice 21202 dated 15 October 2021 which stated the final amount due was $3,161.60 (15 October invoice). This amount was calculated from the balance of the 10 October quote ($2,446.60) plus $330 to supervise the plumber Omar, $220 to supply and install a glass shelf and $165 to supply and install a chrome towel hook. 72 On 3 June 2022 Mr Lalli-Cafini responded with an impolite message which indicated he did not intend to pay the 15 October invoice. 73 In early June 2022 the 2021 complaint was referred to the Tribunal. 74 On 8 June 2022 Mr Mousavi lodged a complaint with the Building Commissioner. The complaint included statements that the contract value was $49,808 and that the '[f]ull contract' was the 22 Exhibit 1, page 55. 23 Exhibit 2, page 307. -- 17 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 18 15 October invoice.24 The investigation report of the Building Commissioner stated Mr Mousavi claimed $3,161.60 was owed by Mr Lalli-Cafini. When this complaint was referred to the Tribunal, it was allocated matter number CC 1539/2022. 75 On 9 June 2022 Mr Mousavi applied for a violence restraining order against Mr Lalli-Cafini. On 10 August 2022 Mr Lalli-Cafini entered into a voluntary undertaking on a no-admission basis. The undertaking expired on 10 August 2023. 76 Mr Tighe recalled attending the site to deliver sample tiles on 8 and 9 April (but could not remember the year) and on a later date. He had left a box containing tiles on the first two occasions, but on the third occasion had been told by Mr Lalli-Cafini to take the box with him. Mr Lalli-Cafini said that sample tiles were delivered to his house on 9 and 22 November 2022 by someone other than Mr Mousavi or Mr Tighe, but none of the tiles matched the bathroom tiles. We do not find it necessary to make any findings regarding this evidence. 77 On 30 January 2023 Mr Mousavi commenced defamation proceedings against Mr Lalli-Cafini. These proceedings were discontinued on 15 March 2023. 78 In mid-April 2023 Mr Lalli-Cafini withdrew the Tribunal proceedings which were the subject of the 2021 complaint. 79 On 2 May 2023 Mr Lalli-Cafini lodged another complaint with the Building Commissioner, which repeated four of the complaints made in the 2021 complaint. This complaint was referred to the Tribunal and allocated matter number CC 776/2023. Mr Lalli-Cafini lodged a further complaint on 15 October 2024. This complaint was referred to the Tribunal and allocated matter number CC 766/2024. Additional findings Quotations and invoices 80 We are satisfied that, as agreed by the parties, Mr Mousavi installed floor and wall tiles measuring 300mm wide and 600mm long.25 24 Exhibit 1, page 5. 25 Based upon the details contained in the second quote, the September quote, the October quote and the October invoice. -- 18 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 19 81 Each of Mr Mousavi's quotations contained the following terms and conditions:26 • If quote is accepted, then 10% deposit will be required before commencement of work. • Any changes or additions will be charge[d] accordingly. • Final payment must be paid within 2 days after completion of work. • All materials remain the property of Atlas Tiling until Final Invoice is paid. • Prices in this quotation are valid for a period of 30 days from the date of the quotation. 82 The 15 October invoice contained the following terms and conditions:27 • Any changes or additions will be charge[d] accordingly. • Final payment must be paid within 2 days after completion of work. • All materials remain the property of Atlas Tiling until Final Invoice is paid. 83 In his oral evidence during the final hearing, Mr Mousavi stated the glass shelf and chrome hook were originally supplied and installed as a gift. However as a result of Mr Lalli-Cafini pursuing complaints and withholding payment, Mr Mousavi decided to invoice those amounts. We accept this evidence. Spare or matching tiles The allegations 84 The parties agree that spare tiles were left with Mr and Mrs Lalli-Cafini at the end of Mr Mousavi's works. Mr Mousavi thought 10 or 11 wall tiles were left. Mr Tighe recalled approximately 10 wall and 5 floor tiles were left behind. 85 Mr Lalli-Cafini recalled there were two boxes of tiles left at the end. He kept one box and returned the other box because he thought having those tiles might have been helpful to Mr Mousavi. 26 Exhibit 1, pages 87, 91, 96 and 101. 27 Exhibit 1, pages 106 - 107. -- 19 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 20 86 Mr Lalli-Cafini said he stored his box of spare tiles outside, and the tiles were destroyed when he hit them with a trailer. 87 Mr Mousavi lodged a letter from a company he claimed to be the original supplier of the tiles installed at the site. The letter stated: (a) in February 2022 they held the same tile in stock; (b) by December 2022, that tile was no longer in stock; (c) even if it was in stock, the shade might not exactly match. 88 Mr Mousavi gave evidence he had more recently located matching tiles, but had no other evidence (such as a photograph or quotation) and could not recall the name of the supplier or other details. 89 Mr Lalli-Cafini's evidence did not specifically address the existence of matching tiles, other than the destruction of the box of spare tiles. Our findings 90 We are satisfied Mr Mousavi left spare tiles for Mr and Mrs Lalli-Cafini at the conclusion of the works. 91 Considering the parties' evidence regarding the numbers of tiles left and the size of the tiles, we consider it likely Mr Mousavi left tiles in two boxes. It is not necessary for us to make a finding regarding how many tiles in total were left by Mr Mousavi. 92 We accept the evidence of Mr Lalli-Cafini that he did not accept some of the spare tiles and destroyed the remainder. 93 In the absence of corroborating evidence, we are not satisfied Mr Mousavi has located matching tiles. The contractual dispute 94 There is no dispute and we are satisfied: (a) the agreement between the parties for the bathroom renovations was a home building work contract; and (b) the allegation that monies are owed by Mr Lalli-Cafini pursuant to the parties' agreement is a HBWC complaint. -- 20 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 21 95 Accordingly, the Tribunal has jurisdiction under the BSCRA Act to determine this matter. 96 We are not satisfied the 15 October invoice is an accurate representation of the parties' agreement for the following reasons: (a) It was created by Mr Mousavi after the completion of the works and contained charges that were not contained in the quotation document created by Mr Mousavi at the conclusion of the works. (b) At the time of supply and installation the glass shelf and chrome hook were gifts. Therefore, the parties had not agreed Mr Lalli-Cafini would pay for those items. 97 We are not satisfied the messages in October 2021 represented an agreement to reduce the agreed price because that is not consistent with other documents. If these messages are evidence of an agreement to avoid tax, as stated above, we are not minded to enforce an illegal agreement. 98 We are satisfied the agreed price for the renovation work was $49,808, as contained in the 10 October quote. 99 We are also satisfied there was an agreement in relation to Omar attending the site. Our reasons are as follows: (a) We read the terms and conditions on the quotations as reserving the right to charge a fee for additional works which are not included in the quotation. This is standard industry practice. (b) The SMS messages from Mr Lalli-Cafini on 7 and 8 October 2021 clearly indicate he considered Mr Mousavi responsible for repairing the blockage in the plumbing. (c) We find credible Mr Mousavi's evidence that the parties agreed that Mr Mousavi would bear the cost of the blockage that had been caused by his renovation works, but otherwise the cost would be payable by Mr Lalli-Cafini. We consider Mr Mousavi's evidence in this respect corroborated by Mr Lalli-Cafini paying Omar directly on the day. (d) It appears from the evidence of both parties, both Omar and Mr Mousavi were expected to attend. In the circumstances it -- 21 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 22 was reasonable and necessary for Mr Mousavi to attend site to supervise the plumbing investigations and work because: (i) Mr Mousavi had arranged for Omar to attend site; (ii) it was reasonable for Mr Mousavi to ensure the works were done to his satisfaction; (iii) it was reasonable for Mr Mousavi to manage communications between Omar and Mr Lalli-Cafini; and (iv) it was necessary for Mr Mousavi to make appropriate arrangements with Mr Lalli-Cafini. 100 There is no evidence the parties agreed to a specific amount for Mr Mousavi's attendance. Omar's fee of $350 could represent one to three hours' work, depending upon the time required to repair the blockage and his rates. On the basis of the information available, Mr Mousavi's fee of $330 is not clearly excessive. 101 For these reasons, we are satisfied Mr Lalli-Cafini had an obligation, pursuant to the parties' home building work contract, to pay Mr Mousavi a total of $50,138.28 Mr Lalli-Cafini has paid $47,251.40 and therefore the amount outstanding is $2,886.60. We are satisfied it is appropriate to make a HBWC remedy order in favour of Mr Mousavi for payment of the outstanding amount. The building service complaints 102 There was no dispute and we are satisfied Mr Mousavi performed a regulated building service as defined by s 3 of the BSCRA Act because: (a) the work done was home building work in the nature of 'altering, improving or repairing a dwelling';29 and (b) Mr Mousavi carried out the work for Mr and Mrs Lalli-Cafini pursuant to an arrangement for gain or reward. 103 We consider the question of whether the works performed by Mr Mousavi were carried out in a proper and proficient manner or were 28 The 10 October quote ($49,808) plus the fee in relation to the plumbing investigations ($330) equals $50,138. 29 HBC Act s 3 - paragraph (c) of the definition of 'home building work'. -- 22 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 23 faulty or unsatisfactory in the context of each separate item of complaint. CC 776/2023 - item 1 - chipped tiles - ensuite bathroom 104 The complaint is described as '[m]ultiple chipped and unclean tiles' in the ensuite bathroom.30 We note the evidence included allegations of chipped tiles in the main bathroom. However, there was no corresponding item of complaint, and the Tribunal's jurisdiction is therefore limited to considering the tiles in the ensuite bathroom. The evidence of chipping 105 On 23 January 2024 a joint expert report was filed with the Tribunal (2024 joint expert report). The report was signed by Lachlan Deshon on behalf of Mr and Mrs Lalli-Cafini and by James Lawrence on behalf of Mr Mousavi. Both experts are registered building contractors and have a trade background in carpentry. Both have engaged in tiling work, though only Mr Lawrence did so on a professional basis. 106 The 2024 joint expert report stated that Mr Deshon and Mr Lawrence agreed that 5% to 10% of the tiles were chipped. However, they disagreed as to the cause of chipping. Mr Deshon considered the chipping was consistent with poor tile cutting practices, the removal of tile spacers or other damage caused during installation. Mr Lawrence considered the chipping on cut edges was consistent with cutting. He considered chipping in other locations had been done after installation and was consistent with impact damage after having been laid because the colour and texture of the grout was not uniform. 107 There is no independent evidence of the condition of the ensuite at the completion of the works. The earliest evidence is contained in the PBRO. The PRBO recorded: (a) On 19 January 2022 the site inspector had observed one chip in one tile behind the shower rack and that all other chipping was observed surrounding the shower and window recesses. (b) Mr Mousavi told the inspector he had been unable to cut the tiles without chipping due to the nature of the product. 30 Exhibit 2, page 12. -- 23 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 24 (c) The inspector considered the chipping to the tiles was 'a result of either inadequate methodology or tools employed' by Mr Mousavi.31 108 The next report is that of Mr Deshon dated 1 April 2023, relating to his site inspection on 20 March 2023. His report stated chipping had been observed to approximately 5% to 10% of tiles, predominantly along cut edges but also to the edges of uncut tiles. 109 Mr Lawrence inspected the site on 7 August 2023. He counted a total of 11 damaged tiles in the ensuite bathroom outside of the shower - two behind the towel rail, one in the middle of the north wall, four around the window in the north-eastern wall, three around the window in the south-east wall and one on the corner of the wall opposite the shower. 110 Mr Deshon visited the site a second time on 17 September 2024 in order to identify the number and location of the chipped tiles. He counted 37 chipped tiles in the ensuite out of a total number of 259 tiles - roughly 14%. He identified chipping to the middle of the south-west wall, both sides of the north-west wall, middle of the north-west shower wall, along the corner of a truncated wall, sides and bottom of the north-east well and around the windows and shower recess. 111 Mr Deshon additionally noted there were tiles in the top row which had a jagged edge. He did not count their number because he considered they could be rectified without being removed. 112 Mr Lawrence revisited the site on 18 November 2024. His report expressed concern that the number of chipped tiles had increased. His annotated photographs indicate he had identified 34 sites of damage to the tiles. The report also expressed the view Mr Deshon's second report had 'doubled up on the same tiles'.32 113 During the hearing Mr Lawrence confirmed his view the number of chipped tiles had increased between his first and second visits. Mr Deshon said that his initial statement that 5% to 10% were chipped was simply an estimate and that he had inspected more closely when asked to count them. 31 Exhibit 2, page 52. 32 Exhibit 3, page 229. -- 24 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 25 114 Mr Mousavi told the Tribunal the tiles were not chipped at the completion of the works. He had photographs taken at completion, but they were of too low a resolution for chips or the absence of chips to be visible. Mr Lalli-Cafini denied that any damage had been done to the tiles after completion. Our findings regarding chipping 115 The 2024 joint expert report stated that Mr Deshon and Mr Lawrence had not reached agreement in relation to this item of complaint. However, we read the report as stating they agreed the chipping at the cut edges was consistent with having occurred during the cutting process and the installation of chipped tiles was not proper or proficient. 116 Unfortunately, the 2024 joint expert report did not identify the number or location of the tiles which were the subject of that agreement. We cannot ascertain with any certainty those tiles from the individual reports of Mr Deshon and Mr Lawrence, nor from their evidence during the final hearing. 117 We are satisfied the number and location of chipped tiles identified in the reports of Mr Deshon and Mr Lawrence is not consistent with the PBRO. The apparent alteration to the state of the tiling in the ensuite bathroom is unexplained. Mr Lalli-Cafini gave evidence, which we accept, that Mr Mousavi had not been permitted back to the site since the completion of works. Therefore, the apparent alteration to the tiles cannot have been caused by Mr Mousavi. 118 We accept the PBRO as satisfactory evidence of the tiles which were chipped during installation because it identifies the location of chipping and expresses the view the chipping was caused by the faulty or unsatisfactory work by Mr Mousavi. Furthermore, it records the response of Mr Mousavi which was that the chipping evident at that time had occurred during the cutting process. 119 Therefore, we are satisfied the chipping on the cut edges of tiles surrounding the window and shower recesses is faulty and unsatisfactory. The PBRO also identified a chip behind the shower rack. The location was not otherwise described, and no shower rack was evident in other reports. Evidence of a chip in an unknown location is too vague to support a finding of faulty or unsatisfactory work. -- 25 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 26 What is the appropriate building remedy order? 120 The 2024 joint expert report stated that Mr Deshon and Mr Lawrence agreed that replacement of the chipped tiles was the correct remedy, providing a reasonable match to the existing tiles is available. 121 In a later report and in his evidence before the Tribunal, Mr Deshon expressed the view that it would be difficult to remove individual tiles without damaging the surrounding tiles. Where damaged tiles were over a waterproof membrane, he considered the risk of damaging the waterproof membrane to be unacceptably high. Therefore he considered all of the tiles should be removed and then replaced after applying a new waterproof membrane. 122 Mr Lawrence disagreed. He expressed the view individual tiles could be removed and measures could be taken to protect adjoining tiles. He said tiles could be safely removed even if they were situated over a waterproof membrane, provided care was taken. 123 Mr Deshon's evidence summarised at paragraph [121] contradicts the agreed conclusion in the joint expert report.33 The Tribunal did not give leave for either party to adduce evidence inconsistent with the joint expert report. Accordingly, that evidence will be disregarded. 124 Mr Mousavi provided spare tiles to Mr and Mrs Lalli-Cafini. Through no fault of Mr Mousavi, it appears those tiles are no longer available. 125 There is no evidence that matching tiles, or tiles which closely match, do not exist. There is no evidence of any enquiries having been made by Mr and Mrs Lalli-Cafini to locate matching tiles. 126 We are not satisfied it is reasonable and proportionate to entirely retile the ensuite bathroom because the expert evidence is that individual tiles can be replaced and we are not satisfied that matching tiles are unavailable. We are therefore satisfied the appropriate scope of works is the replacement of the chipped tiles surrounding the window and shower recesses. 127 Mr and Mrs Lalli-Cafini seek a monetary order. Estimator Christopher Jones gave evidence in the hearing on their behalf. Mr Jones was asked to consider the cost of replacing 23 tiles in the 33 See paragraph [120]. -- 26 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 27 main bathroom. After consideration, Mr Jones estimated a cost of $9,246.35 including preliminaries, mark-up and GST but not including contingencies. His estimation included removal and replacement of the shower screen, painting of door frames and cornices and replacement of window and recess trims. 128 Mr Mousavi objected to a monetary order and submitted it was more appropriate that he be permitted to perform remedial work. 129 Neither party has the right to elect between a monetary or work order, that is a matter for the Tribunal in the exercise of its discretion under s38 of the BSCRA Act.34 In exercising that discretion, consideration of the surrounding circumstances is relevant. In this case, Mr and Mrs Lalli-Cafini alleged that during the course of these proceedings Mr Mousavi had applied twice for violence restraining orders against Mr Lalli-Cafini and also commenced proceedings alleging defamation by Mr Lalli-Cafini. 130 Our observations of the conduct of the parties during the hearing satisfies us that the hostility between the parties is so significant that to order Mr Mousavi to return to site would put both parties at unnecessary risk. For this reason, we will exercise our discretion to make a monetary order. 131 We will consider the amount of the monetary order below.35 CC 776/2023 - item 2 - window and recess trims - ensuite bathroom 132 The complaint is that the aluminium trims bordering the windows and shower recess in the ensuite bathroom were not correctly fitted. We note the evidence included allegations regarding trims in the main bathroom. However there was no corresponding item of complaint in relation to the main bathroom, and the Tribunal's jurisdiction is therefore limited to considering trims in the ensuite bathroom. 133 The 2024 joint expert report states that both Mr Deshon and Mr Lawrence agree the trims had not been fitted correctly. We accept the report and are satisfied the aluminium trims in the ensuite bathroom are faulty and unsatisfactory. 134 The experts agreed, and Mr Mousavi conceded, the appropriate remediation is to remedy the trims so that they are cut and installed so 34 Gemmill Homes Pty Ltd v Sanders at [134]. 35 See paragraphs [178] - [192]. -- 27 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 28 as to achieve a consistent, flush mitre joint that is aesthetically pleasing and fit for purpose. We accept their evidence. 135 Mr and Mrs Lalli-Cafini seek a monetary order in the sum of $1,247.40 which was said to be the cost of fixing the trims. On the other hand, Mr Mousavi contends it is appropriate there be orders he perform the necessary remediation works. For the reasons described above,36 we are satisfied a monetary order is appropriate. 136 We will consider the amount of the monetary order below.37 CC 776/2023 - item 3 - water retention in shower - ensuite bathroom 137 Mr and Mrs Lalli-Cafini complain the shower floor in the ensuite bathroom is not draining. 138 In the 2024 joint expert report, Mr Deshon and Mr Lawrence agree the ensuite shower floor retains water near the strip drain and that the shower floor is not draining in an adequate manner. We accept the report and are satisfied the floor of the ensuite bathroom shower is faulty and unsatisfactory. 139 The experts agreed it the falls in the shower required remedy so that no pooling occurred, other than due to surface tension. We accept their evidence. 140 For the reasons described above,38 we are satisfied a monetary order is appropriate. We will consider the amount of the monetary order below.39 CC 776/2023 - item 4 - inconsistent sealants - water closet 141 This complaint was that inconsistent sealants had been used to seal the base of the toilet in the water closet. 142 The 2024 joint expert report states that Mr Deshon and Mr Lawrence agree the installation of the sealant in that location was faulty and unsatisfactory. We accept the report. 143 The experts agree, and we accept, the sealant requires rectification. 36 Paragraph [130]. 37 See paragraphs [178] - [192]. 38 Paragraph [130]. 39 See paragraphs [178] - [192]. -- 28 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 29 144 For the reasons described above,40 we are satisfied a monetary order is appropriate. We will consider the amount of the monetary order below.41 CC 766/2024 - items 1 and 2 - movement joints - main and ensuite bathrooms 145 The subject of these complaints is the omission of movement joints from the main and ensuite bathrooms. 146 On 6 October 2025 a joint expert report was filed with the Tribunal (2025 joint expert report). The report was signed by Mr Deshon on behalf of Mr and Mrs Lalli-Cafini and by Mr Lawrence on behalf of Mr Mousavi. 147 In the 2025 joint expert report Mr Deshon and Mr Lawrence: (a) agree movement joints are present in the showers but not in the bathroom areas outside of the showers; (b) do not agree regarding whether or not movement joints were required; and (c) agree that at the time of inspection there were no defects in the grout joints and they were performing as required. 148 Both Mr Deshon and Mr Lawrence in their reports cited Australian Standard AS3958.1:2007 section 5.4.2(c) which states:42 Perimeter joints Movement joints type (c), as shown in Figure 5.1, should be inserted where the tiling abuts restraining surfaces such as perimeter walls, columns, curbs, steps and plant fixed to the base. In floors of less than approximately 10 m2, perimeter joints may be deleted if it is considered that the hygiene, waterproofing or aesthetics of the installation will be adversely affected. If perimeter joints are deleted, floor tiles should finish a minimum of 3 mm from restraining surfaces. Perimeter joints are recommended in all areas where conditions that may generate stresses are likely to be extreme, as in rapid, large temperature changes (e.g., underfloor heating). 149 We are satisfied from the photographs filed by the parties that the floor tiles in both bathrooms have been laid without perimeter joints 40 Paragraph [130]. 41 See paragraphs [178] - [192]. 42 Exhibit 3, page 233; Exhibit 4, page 29. -- 29 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 30 and without a minimum gap of 3 mm from restraining surfaces, such as walls. 150 We are not satisfied the evidence established the absence of perimeter joints and 3mm gaps means the floor tiling was not carried out in a proper or proficient manner or that it was faulty or unsatisfactory. This is because: (a) There is no evidence indicating the bathroom floors outside of the showers are areas where rapid or large changes in temperatures are likely to occur. (b) Photographs of the site satisfy us the house was originally constructed before 2000. Therefore, we consider further settling or movement of the house unlikely. (c) After some 5 years the grout joints are undamaged and performing as required. 151 For these reasons, these items will be dismissed. CC 766/2024 - item 3 and 4 - grout haze - main and ensuite bathrooms 152 Mr and Mrs Lalli-Cafini complain Mr Mousavi failed to remove grout haze in the main and ensuite bathrooms. The evidence relating to grout haze 153 In the 2025 joint expert report, Mr Deshon and Mr Lawrence agreed they had observed grout haze on the tiles in the main and ensuite bathrooms and that any grout haze which had been present at the conclusion of Mr Mousavi's work should have been removed prior to handover. 154 Mr Mousavi gave evidence denying that any grout haze had been left on the tiles at the completion of his works. 155 During his oral evidence, Mr Lalli-Cafini stated that Mr Mousavi completed grouting the tiles in the main bathroom and then told Mr Lalli-Cafini that he had to leave. Mr Lalli-Cafini asked if they could use the main bathroom and was told that the tiles needed to be wiped down. As a result, Mr and Mrs Lalli-Cafini spent two and a half hours that evening wiping all the excess grout from the tiles. He said the main bathroom was left clean of grout haze because of their work, not due to Mr Mousavi. -- 30 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 31 156 Mr Lalli-Cafini was taken to the report of Mr Deshon dated 1 April 2023 in which he identified grout haze. Mr Lalli-Cafini expressed the view that the marks identified by Mr Deshon were not grout haze, but had instead resulted from his cleaning paint off the window trim. 157 In his reports and in his oral evidence (in relation to the chipped tiles), Mr Lawrence said he had observed differences in the colour and texture of grout in both bathrooms, which led him to believe there had been grout applied after the bathroom tiles had been installed. Mr Lalli-Cafini was asked if he had applied any grout. Mr Lalli-Cafini stated in response that he had not touched the grout in either bathroom, other than to clean it up. Our findings regarding the grout haze 158 We accept the matters agreed by Mr Deshon and Mr Lawrence regarding grout haze contained in the 2025 joint expert report. As a result, we are satisfied: (a) the markings observed by Mr Deshon and Mr Lawrence are grout haze and not paint or the residue of a cleaning solution; and (b) grout haze is present in the main and ensuite bathrooms. 159 Both Mr Mousavi and Mr Lalli-Cafini believe there was no grout haze in the main bathroom at the completion of the works by Mr Mousavi. If we accept their evidence, we cannot be satisfied the evidence establishes that Mr Mousavi caused the grout haze in the main bathroom. 160 Further, the evidence of Mr Lalli-Cafini suggests that he and Mrs Lalli-Cafini may have cleaned the tiles before the grout had dried. Therefore, Mr and Mrs Lalli-Cafini not only took responsibility for the cleaning of the tiles (arguably removing that task from Mr Mousavi's scope of works) but may have themselves caused the grout haze which is now visible. If we accept this evidence from Mr Lalli-Cafini, it does not establish Mr Mousavi caused the grout haze in the main bathroom. 161 We accept the above-described evidence of Mr Lalli-Cafini and Mr Mousavi and therefore are not satisfied Mr Mousavi caused the grout haze in the main bathroom. -- 31 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 32 162 Mr Lalli-Cafini and Mr Mousavi did not comment upon the grout haze in the ensuite bathroom. However, in the circumstances we are not satisfied the evidence established the grout haze was caused by Mr Mousavi. 163 For these reasons, these items will be dismissed. CC 766/2024 - items 5, 6 and 7 - water penetration - main and ensuite bathrooms 164 Mr and Mrs Lalli-Cafini complain there is water penetrating the walls between the bathroom and the second bedroom, between the ensuite bathroom and the second bedroom and between the ensuite bathroom and study. The evidence regarding water penetration 165 In the 2025 joint expert report, Mr Deshon and Mr Lawrence agree that: (a) at the time of inspection they observed no water damage, other than that which Mr Lalli-Cafini had identified as being present before Mr Mousavi's works; (b) elevated moisture readings had been measured (but did not agree whether this was a false reading caused by the metal mixer tap); and (c) further testing was appropriate by either or both of flood testing or pressure testing. 166 On 22 October 2025 Mr Deshon returned to the site with a plumber. The plumber pressure tested the shower mixer taps and cold water lines in the main and ensuite bathrooms and found nothing to indicate a water leak. 167 Mr Deshon flooded the showers in the main and ensuite bathrooms with hot water, allowed the water to stand for approximately an hour and then carried out tests with a thermal imaging camera and moisture meter. Mr Deshon said the 'thermal imaging camera didn't give me anything, so I relied on the moisture met[ers]'.43 168 Mr Dehon measured moisture levels in timber skirting, timber flooring, tiled flooring and a concrete floor and said the pattern of 43 ts 202, 5 May 2026. -- 32 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 33 moisture confirmed that moisture was leaking from both showers. He did not test moisture levels before flooding the showers. 169 Mr Deshon said the thermal imaging camera had confirmed the presence of the metal mixer tap in the location of the initial high moisture reading. That, in combination with no evidence of a leak from the plumbing, in his view confirmed the initial moisture readings had been false. 170 Both Mr Deshon and Mr Lawrence were asked about the importance of silicone in the waterproofing of a shower. Mr Deshon stated that silicone was part of the waterproofing system and the system would not perform as well if the silicone were removed. However he considered silicone has a negligible effect, as compared to the waterproof membrane. 171 On the other hand, Mr Lawrence said that over time, the movement of water through improperly applied silicone could cause the waterproof membrane to fail. 172 In his evidence, Mr Lalli-Cafini stated that he had removed and reapplied silicone in the showers twice. Mr Mousavi took Mr Lalli-Cafini to a number of photographs and Mr Lalli-Cafini agreed they were photographs of gaps in the silicone in the showers, and the silicone had been applied by him. 173 We asked Mr Deshon and Mr Lawrence about visible evidence of moisture damage. Mr Deshon said that if there had been any new damage, he could not differentiate that from the old damage. Mr Lawrence said: (a) he could not see any new damage; and (b) the skirting boards, being MDF, were very sensitive to moisture and would 'definitely' have shown the effects if any moisture were coming through.44 Our findings regarding water penetration 174 There are no orders allowing the admission of evidence contrary to the joint expert evidence. We have considered the evidence obtained after the 2025 joint expert report because Mr Deshon and Mr Lawrence 44 ts 240, 5 May 2026. -- 33 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 34 agreed further testing was required and there was no agreement regarding the cause of the elevated moisture readings. 175 We are not satisfied the evidence established the existence of water egress from either shower. Firstly, there is no evidence of moisture damage occurring since the works were completed in 2021. Secondly, the experts appear to now agree the initial measurements, which suggested elevated moisture, were false readings caused by the presence of the metal mixer tap. 176 Thirdly, we are not satisfied Mr Deshon's flood testing produced reliable results because: (a) He did not take any measurements before flooding the showers. (b) It is not clear to us that the method of measurement was reliable. Mr Deshon's evidence did not indicate that he established a dry baseline nor that he made adjustments for different materials (because acceptable moisture levels differ for different materials). (c) Non-invasive measurements, as carried out by Mr Deshon, are generally considered to be indicative only. More reliable evidence is gained by penetrative testing, which was not carried out. 177 For these reasons, these items will be dismissed. Quantum of a monetary order 178 As discussed above, we are satisfied a building remedy order is appropriate in relation to complaint items 1, 2, 3 and 4 of CC 776/2023 and that a monetary order should be made in each instance. 179 In relation to item 1, we are satisfied chipped tiles surrounding the window and shower recesses require remediation. In relation to item 2, we are satisfied the trims surrounding the window and shower recesses require remediation. 180 It appears not every tile surrounding the recesses is chipped. However, we are satisfied it is likely the removal of the trims will damage adjoining tiles. Therefore we are satisfied appropriate remediation will be the replacement of all surrounding tiles and the trim. -- 34 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 35 181 Mr Deshon counted 28 tiles surrounding the window recesses and 6 tiles surrounding the shower recess, being a total of 34. 182 During the final hearing, Mr Jones was asked to estimate the cost of removing 37 individual tiles in the ensuite bathroom. His assessment was as follows:45 (a) labour to remove and replace tiles - five days' work because removal of tiles over the waterproof membrane would be 'a very time-consuming process and finicky'46 - $800 per day; (b) tile supply - four square metres at an allowance of $65 per square metre; (c) trims, supply and installation - $250; (d) glue, grout and silicone - $250; (e) damage protection - $250; (f) tools and sundry - $150; (g) 'niche labour works' - $400; (h) waste removal - $85; and (i) plus 5% for contingencies, 25% for builder's mark up and GST. 183 We calculate this to be a total of $8,149.97. 184 We do not consider it usual for a tiler to charge a percentage mark-up in addition to a day rate, because their profit is normally calculated into the day rate. Mr Jones said the mark-up covered management supervision, but this appears more relevant to the charges of a builder, than for a tiler engaged directly by Mr and Mrs Lalli-Cafini. 185 A day rate of $800 for a tiler is high, but we accept it may be necessary because this is a more difficult project and an experienced tiler would be required. 186 Mr Jones said he calculated the cost to supply trims would be $18 to $20 per length, and that his figure of $250 included supply and 45 Excluding those parts of his assessment which are not here relevant, such as engaging a plumber to remove and then reinstate the shower rose. 46 ts 303, 306 and 366, 6 May 2026. -- 35 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 36 installation. We consider installation and the 'niche labour costs' would normally be absorbed within the day rate, particularly if we allow five days rather than four. (Noting that Mr Jones allowed five days for the replacement of 37 tiles but we assess that 34 require replacement.) 187 Accordingly, we calculate the likely costs as follows: (a) labour to remove and replace tiles - five days' at $800 per day; (b) supply of tiles - four square metres at $65 per square metre; (c) supply of trims - $160;47 (d) glue, grout and silicone - $250; (e) damage protection - $250; (f) tools and sundry - $150; (g) waste removal - $85; (h) 5% for contingencies; (i) 10% GST; (j) totalling $5,954.03. 188 Accordingly, we are satisfied it is appropriate to make a monetary order in the amount of $5,954.03 in relation to items 1 and 2. 189 Mr Jones' estimates in relation to items 3 and 4 were as follows:48 (a) $4,181 plus 35% mark up, 5% contingency and 10% GST being a total of $6,438.74; and (b) $240 plus 35% mark up, 5% contingency and 10% GST being a total of $369.60. 190 We accept Mr Jones' estimates except for the following: (a) For the same reasons as stated above,49 we do not consider a mark up should be added to the cost of the work. 47 Calculated on the basis of four pieces of trim for each of two recesses and each piece costing $20. 48 In his 2023 report, and confirmed during the final hearing. 49 See paragraph [184]. -- 36 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 37 (b) Mr Jones included in his estimate for item 3 the removal and reinstallation of the shower rose and shower taps. We do not see this work as necessary in correcting the fall in the floor. (c) Mr Jones included in his estimate a single amount for the removal of the shower screen and bathroom cabinets. We do not see the removal of the cabinets as a necessary part of the work required for item 3. We will allow the same amount allowed for reinstallation of the shower screen. 191 Accordingly, we calculate the costs (including 5% contingency and GST) as being $3,581.66 for item 3 and $277.20 for item 4. 192 We calculate the total monetary order as $9,812.89, being the total in relation to complain items 1 and 2 ($5,954.03), complaint item 3 ($3,581.66) and complaint item 4 ($277.20). Conclusion 193 For the reasons expressed above, we are satisfied it is appropriate to: (a) in relation to CC 1539/2022, make a monetary HBWC remedy order in the sum of $2,886.60; (b) in relation to CC 776/2023, make a monetary building remedy order in the total amount of $9,812.89; and (c) dismiss complaint items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in CC 766/2024. 194 To minimise the opportunities for further disputes to arise, we consider it appropriate the amounts owed by each party be set-off against each other, so that only the net balance is required to be paid. Orders CC 1539/2022 The Tribunal orders: 1. Pursuant to s 43(1)(a) and s 41(2)(b) of the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), Mr Lalli-Cafini must pay to Mr Mousavi the sum of $2,886.60, which is to be set off against the sum of $9,812.89 owed by Mr Mousavi to Mr and Mrs Lalli-Cafini in CC 776/2023. -- 37 of 38 -- [2026] WASAT 97 Page 38 CC 776/2023 The Tribunal orders: 1. Pursuant to s 38(1)(a) and s 36(1)(b) of the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), in relation to complaint items 1, 2, 3 and 4, Mr Mousavi must pay to Mr and Mrs Lalli-Cafini the sum of $9,812.89, which is to be set off against the sum of $2,886.60 owed by Mr Lalli-Cafini in CC 1539/2022. 2. The balance of $6,926.29 must be paid by Mr Mousavi to Mr Lalli-Cafini within 30 days of the date of these orders. CC 766/2024 The Tribunal orders: 1. Pursuant to s 38(1)(b) of the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), the Tribunal declines to make a building remedy order and the proceedings are dismissed. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal. MS N Oldfield, MEMBER 20 AUGUST 2026 -- 38 of 38 --