Homeowners’ building delay claim dismissed after they brought in their own electrician (SAT, 2026)

What happened

In December 2020 the homeowners signed a contract with Platinum Homes & Construction Pty Ltd to build a house in Byford for $240,000. The contract allowed 200 days to finish. Work started on 7 September 2021 and should have reached practical completion by 28 June 2022, but it ran late.

In August 2023 the homeowners complained to the Building Commissioner about the delay, and the matter went to the tribunal. At a mediation conference on 13 November 2023 the parties reached a settlement, written out by hand and signed by both. The builder would complete six listed categories of work, including the electrical fit-off and certificates, within four weeks. The homeowners would pay $20,000 on completion. The settlement said it was 'to supersede all prior agreements in building contract, addenda and variations'. The homeowners then withdrew that earlier case. Under the settlement the work should have been finished by 11 December 2023.

On 10 April 2024 one of the homeowners engaged his own electrician to finish the electrical work and did not tell the builder. On 12 April 2024 the builder's electrician went to the house and found electrical work that the tribunal accepted was dangerous and unsafe. He said the house should not be occupied in that condition. That same day the builder sent a WhatsApp message saying 'That's it we have terminated.' The tribunal also found that this homeowner had earlier removed a hob and personally wired some power outlets. It found his evidence evasive and preferred the evidence of the builder's electrician and tiler where they conflicted.

In June 2025 the homeowners made a fresh complaint to the Building Commissioner, which was referred to the tribunal.

What each side wanted

The homeowners made two claims. First, they sought lost rent, at $425 a week, on another property they owned and had been living in while the house was built. They claimed it for the period from 28 June 2022 until practical completion, which they said was 11 April 2024. Second, they sought $66,926.20, the extra cost of finishing the work, on the basis that they had validly ended the contract in April 2024. At the final hearing they also argued that the settlement was void because it was too uncertain, so the original building contract still applied. They said hiring their own electrician was an act of desperation that simply took that part of the work out of the builder's hands. They also said it was the builder's termination that was wrongful. The builder argued that the settlement replaced the original contract. It said the homeowners had interfered with the work and that it was entitled to end the agreement.

What the tribunal decided

The tribunal dismissed the application. The homeowners received nothing on either claim.

The tribunal also gave the builder 21 days to apply for its legal costs, with written submissions limited to 10 pages. The homeowners would then have 14 days to reply. Any costs application is to be decided on the documents, without a further hearing. The tribunal noted that the builder appeared to be owed the $20,000 under the settlement. It could not order that payment because the builder had not made its own claim in this case.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

First, the tribunal decided it could look at the mediated settlement. Section 55 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) stops things said or done in mediation being used later in the same case. It does not stop a mediated agreement from one case being used in a different case. The tribunal would not consider the argument that the settlement was void for uncertainty. That argument was not part of the complaint the Building Commissioner had referred, and the tribunal can only decide the complaint referred to it. The homeowners' own complaint described the contract 'as varied by the settlement agreement'.

Second, the tribunal applied a contract-law idea called 'accord and satisfaction'. This is where a person agrees to accept something new in place of their existing legal claim, and that new agreement ends the old claim. The settlement said it 'superseded' all prior agreements. It also set out the remaining work, a new total price and a new deadline. It was made to draw a line under a long-running dispute. The tribunal found it was meant to end any claims under the original building contract and create a new, separate agreement. That agreement was itself a 'home building work contract' under the Home Building Contracts Act 1991 (WA). This mattered because the tribunal can deal with contract complaints, called 'HBWC complaints', about that kind of contract under the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA).

Third, the tribunal found the homeowners had 'repudiated' the settlement. Repudiation means acting in a way that shows a party will not honour a key part of the deal. Under the settlement, all electrical work was the builder's job. Electrical work is a licensed, highly regulated trade and was an essential part of the agreement. By bringing in their own electrician, and doing some wiring themselves, the homeowners took away a substantial benefit of the deal from the builder. The builder was therefore entitled to end it. The tribunal rejected the argument that the builder's delays let the homeowners end the deal. They had chosen to carry on with the agreement, known as 'affirming' it, and never tried to terminate it. Because the homeowners were the ones in breach, their claim for completion costs failed.

Finally, the lost rent claim relied only on the original building contract, which the settlement had replaced. The tribunal added that it would have refused this claim anyway. To recover lost rent, a homeowner has to show the builder knew they planned to rent out their existing home, and there was no evidence of that. The builder's practitioner said he did not even know the homeowners had a second house. The evidence about whether the property could be rented, and for how much, was also weak. There was no lease, no proof of rent payments and no evidence of the property's condition.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, this decision shows that a settlement signed at a tribunal mediation can do more than pause a dispute. Depending on its wording, it can replace the original building contract entirely. Words such as 'supersede', together with a new list of work, a new price and a new deadline, led the tribunal here to treat earlier claims under the old contract as finished. A later claim then had to be judged under the settlement's terms.

It also shows how the tribunal treats a homeowner bringing in their own tradesperson for work the builder is contracted to do. Here, engaging another electrician without telling the builder was treated as a serious breach that let the builder end the agreement. That was so even though the builder had itself been late. The decision also shows that the tribunal only decides the issues set out in the complaint referred by the Building Commissioner. A claim for lost rent needs evidence that the builder knew about the rental plans, and proof of the rent that would have been earned.

In disputes like this, the first step most people take is to put their concerns to the other party in writing, often as a formal notice or demand. If that does not resolve it, a building contract complaint in Western Australia is usually lodged with the Building Commissioner, who can refer it 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: Dhillon and Platinum Homes & Construction Pty Ltd [2026] WASAT 111 (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.