Home owners win $17,853 for tiling defects but must pay builder $19,413.75 (SAT, 2026)

What happened

In December 2022 the owners signed a contract with Buildmark Pty Ltd for a fixed price of $50,358 to modify an ensuite bathroom at a house in Clarkson. The modification was to make the bathroom wheelchair accessible for the second applicant, who is a participant in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), and the contract price was to be paid by NDIS. The project came with a scope of works, drawings, an NDIS occupational therapist and a separate NDIS project manager from Celtic Builders Pty Ltd, who made decisions about some issues as they arose. The builder was chosen as the cheaper of two quotes.

Work started on 31 January 2023. The contract allowed 30 working days from commencement, so the builder had until 14 March 2023 to finish. The tribunal found the first applicant had assumed the period was 30 calendar days and had arranged respite care for his wife on that shorter basis. Disputes began early, about matters such as whether a structural head was needed over a widened doorway, the mesh in the floor screed, the pace of the trades, the vanity and finishes, the quality of plastering and painting, and the relocation of the ensuite doorway.

Emails between the parties deteriorated quickly. On 17 February 2023 the first applicant asked that his email be treated as a breach notice with an option to terminate. The tribunal accepted the builder's evidence that by 3 March 2023 the owners had denied access to all the trade contractors. Both sides served breach notices. The builder never returned to site. The tribunal found that the parties terminated the contract by their conduct somewhere between 7 March and 14 April 2023, and that the termination was brought on by the owners refusing the builder entry before the contract period for finishing the work had run out.

The owners' original complaint named the project manager. The Building Commissioner's investigation established that Buildmark Pty Ltd was the builder and Celtic was the project manager. The complaint was eventually split into 21 items and referred to the tribunal, with a second complaint about the lack of a building permit and home indemnity insurance, and a third case brought by the builder for unpaid invoices and for being shut out of the site. All three were heard together over three days in March and May 2026.

What each side wanted

The owners asked for the cost of completely demolishing and rebuilding the work, plus other expenses they said flowed from the builder's breaches. They relied on a building inspection report, a structural engineering report and a concrete scan report, and on the builder's failure to obtain a building permit and home indemnity insurance, which they said made the contract unenforceable and barred the builder from demanding any payment. The builder said no permit and no insurance were required for this kind of work, that most of the complaints were about work it had not been allowed to finish rather than faulty work, and it claimed $12,924.26 for completed but unbilled work plus $6,489.49 in contract interest, and asked to be let back on site.

What the tribunal decided

In the owners' first complaint (CC 150 of 2025) the tribunal upheld part of one item, item 2A, about the tiling. Under s 38 and s 36(1)(b) of the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA) it ordered that by 14 August 2026 the builder pay the owners $17,853. It declined to make any order on items 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 18, and gave the owners leave to withdraw items 5A, 5B, 5C, 6, 13 to 17 and 19.

In the owners' second complaint (CC 364 of 2025) about the missing building permit and home indemnity insurance, the tribunal declined to make any order on either item.

In the builder's case (CC 151 of 2025) the tribunal allowed the invoice claim in full and ordered that by 14 August 2026 the owners pay the builder $19,413.75, being the $12,924.26 invoice dated 27 March 2023 for completed work and $6,489.49 of interest under the contract. It declined to make an order on the builder's second item about site access, because the chance to finish the work had been overtaken by events.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The tribunal treated the owners' refusal to let the builder back on site as repudiatory conduct, because it happened before the contract's completion date of 14 March 2023 had passed and, on the tribunal's findings about the complaints, the owners did not have enough reason for it. That had a direct effect on what they could recover: any defect claim allowed could give a remedy only for faulty or unsatisfactory work that was already apparent, not for work left incomplete because the builder was deprived of the chance to finish it. On that basis several items failed as "incomplete, rather than faulty or unsatisfactory" work, including missing door hardware, the plastering that was not yet ready for painting, the reflux valve and the floor waste.

The tiling succeeded because the measurements in the owners' own inspection report showed floor falls outside the gradients set by the scope of works, and the builder's director conceded the as-built falls were outside those limits. The tribunal also found a fall at the doorway where the floor should have been level, and that a workable waterproofing solution at the bedroom and ensuite junction would be needed when the tiling was redone. Other items failed on the evidence: the engineer who certified the widened doorway said no lintel was required and no roof beam sat over it; later photographs showed the slab mesh and connections the reports said were missing; and the relocated ensuite doorway had been settled at a meeting of the project manager, the occupational therapist and the builder, so the builder's work had to be measured against that resolution rather than the original drawings. The clear door opening was measured at 900 mm in the owners' own report.

On remedy, s 36(1) of the Act offers an order to remedy, an order to pay or a compensation order. Because the relationship had broken down and the builder accepted full market rates, the tribunal chose an order to pay the costs of remedying the building service it considered reasonable, under s 36(1)(b). The owners had asked only for full demolition and reconstruction and had not broken their quotation down into the items that were upheld, so the tribunal had very little to work with. It adopted the builder's suggestion of using the itemised figures in the original quotation, and the building sessional member prepared a notional remedial scope and cost schedule, which came to $17,853.

On the permit and insurance, the tribunal worked through the legislation rather than relying on a media release about disciplinary proceedings in which the Building Services Board fined the company $5,000 and its director $2,500 for failing to properly manage and supervise the building service. It held there was no issue estoppel from that release and it would not simply adopt investigating officers' opinions. Section 9(1) of the Home Building Contracts Act 1991 (WA) makes a contract conditional on a building permit being granted, but reg 41(3) of the Building Regulations 2012 (WA) and the table in Schedule 4 clause 2 mean no permit is required for renovation or alteration that does not adversely affect structural soundness or increase the floor area of the building. Engineering advice showed the removed wall was not load bearing and the widened doorway had no structural impact; the extra floor area inside the ensuite was not an increase in the building's footprint. Since no permit was required, s 25B(4A) meant the home indemnity insurance Division did not apply, so s 25C(1) did not bar the builder from demanding payment. The owners' sole defence to the invoices therefore failed, they never disputed that the invoiced work was done or that the interest matched the contract, and the tribunal said the order to pay the remedial cost already put them where they would have been had the builder complied.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, this decision shows how a tribunal separates faulty work from unfinished work. Where a builder is locked out before the contract's time for completion has run, items that are simply not finished may be treated as work the builder was never given the chance to complete, and a complaint about them can fail even though the house is plainly not done. It also shows how much the contract's own wording matters: "30 working days" and "30 calendar days" are different deadlines, and the completion date is read from the contract, not from arrangements made around it.

It also shows what happens when a claim is pitched as all or nothing. The owners asked only for the cost of full demolition and reconstruction and did not break their quote down item by item, so when a small number of items succeeded the tribunal had almost nothing to value them with, and ended up building a cost schedule from the builder's original quotation. Measurements against a written scope of works, such as the floor gradients here, did the real work. Findings by a regulator are also not automatically findings in a tribunal case: the tribunal applied the Building Act, the Building Regulations and the Home Building Contracts Act itself and reached a different conclusion about whether a permit was needed, and a builder's claim for work actually done can still succeed alongside a defects order against it.

In a dispute about building work, the step most people take first is a written notice to the builder that lists each defect, attaches the scope of works, the drawings and photographs, and asks for the work to be fixed by a date. If that does not resolve it, the next step is usually a complaint to the building regulator or an application to the tribunal.

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

Source: Creighton and Buildmark Pty Ltd [2026] WASAT 87 (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.