Builder ordered to pay $141,404 after not fixing rust spots on strata apartment walls (SAT, 2026)

What happened

The property at 16 Peppering Way, Westminster has two two-storey apartment buildings, separated by a car parking area. The strata company for the buildings is the applicant. A strata company is the body that manages the common property for all the owners. Rust spots and staining appeared through the external paint on the rendered walls, and the problem was getting worse over time.

The strata company complained about the builder, Macri Group Pty Ltd. On 3 February 2025 the Building Commissioner made a building remedy order. This is a formal order requiring a builder to fix faulty or poorly done work. It required the builder to fix all rust spot damage visible on the external rendered walls from a normal viewing position, so that no rust spots could be seen and the finish was an even colour.

On 9 March 2025 the strata company told the Commissioner the order had not been complied with. The builder said it had intended to do the work, but the parties could not agree on what work was needed or how to do it. The Commissioner asked both sides for itemised quotes. The strata company's quotes added up to more than $100,000. The Commissioner cannot make orders above that amount, so the matter was sent to the tribunal on 26 August 2025.

At the hearing the builder relied on a forensic and materials scientist who sampled the rust spots, a cost estimator, and its sole director. The strata company relied on an experienced painter who gave evidence about the work needed and its cost. It also relied on a Dulux territory manager and a building inspector from the state department. The tribunal also visited the site.

What each side wanted

The strata company asked the tribunal to convert the Commissioner's order to fix the work into an order that the builder pay money instead. The builder said it had meant to carry out the repairs, and the two sides disagreed about the scope and method of the work needed to fix the rust spots and what that work would reasonably cost. The catchwords also show that the tribunal considered whether any allowance should be made for 'betterment'. This means the owners possibly ending up with something better than they originally paid for.

What the tribunal decided

The tribunal revoked (cancelled) the Building Commissioner's building remedy order under section 51(2) of the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA). It replaced it with a monetary order under section 36(1)(b) of the Act. That order requires the builder to pay the strata company $141,404.03, including GST, as the costs of fixing the rust spots.

The published text available does not state a deadline for payment.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

There was no dispute that the builder had failed to comply with the Commissioner's order within the time allowed. The tribunal was therefore satisfied that the required repair work had not been done. Once it was satisfied of that, section 51(2) of the Act allowed it to cancel the order and replace it with an order to pay. Under section 36(1)(b) that can be an order to pay the reasonable costs of fixing the work. Under section 36(1)(c) it can be an order to pay compensation for work that was faulty or not done properly. The tribunal noted that an applicant can say which type of order it prefers, but cannot simply choose it.

The tribunal explained that it did not need to decide again whether the work was faulty. The original order had already been made on that basis. What it did have to be satisfied of was that the costs claimed were both necessary and reasonable to fix the rust spots safely and in line with applicable Australian standards and the National Construction Code. It said this is a question of fact that depends on the circumstances of each case.

The tribunal said it would look at what caused the rust spots, because the cause shapes what repair work is needed and so what it reasonably costs. The published text ends part-way through that discussion, so the detailed reasons for arriving at the final figure, and for any finding on betterment, are not available here.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, this decision shows how the system works when a builder is ordered to fix defects but does not do so in time. The Building Commissioner can order a builder to fix work. If the builder does not comply and the cost of the work is over $100,000, the matter can go to the tribunal. The tribunal can then turn the order to fix the work into an order to pay money.

It also shows that once a remedy order has been made, the tribunal does not normally re-examine whether the work was faulty. The argument shifts to what repair work is actually needed and what it reasonably costs. Both sides in this case relied on expert and trade evidence about the cause of the problem, the method of repair and the price. The tribunal also inspected the site itself.

In disputes like this, most people first set out the problem to the builder in writing and ask for it to be fixed. If that does not resolve it, they then lodge a formal complaint or application with the relevant body.

How to apply: our step-by-step guide to a SAT application. More decisions: SAT cases and builders and building defects.

Source: The Owners of 16 Peppering Way Westminster Strata Plan 78118 and Macri Group Pty Ltd [2026] WASAT 119 (read the full decision). This summary was prepared from the published decision for general information. It is not legal advice, and the tribunal’s own reasons are the authoritative record.