Lin and Pyramid Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd

Case [2017] WASAT 5


LIN and PYRAMID CONSTRUCTIONS (WA) PTY LTD [2017] WASAT 5



STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALCitation No:[2017] WASAT 5
BUILDING SERVICES (COMPLAINT RESOLUTION and ADMINISTRATION) ACT 2011 (WA)
Case No:CC:522/20164 AND 5 OCTOBER 2016
Coram:MR C RAYMOND (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)
MR J FISHER (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)
11/01/17
4Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Proceedings dismissed
B
PDF Version
Parties:XI LIN
PYRAMID CONSTRUCTIONS (WA) PTY LTD

Catchwords:

Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA) ­ Complaints by individual lot owners in strata scheme and by strata company in respect of same alleged faulty and unsatisfactory regulated building services ­ Whether applicant or strata company appropriate complainant

Legislation:

Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), s 5(1), s 11(1)(d)
Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), s 17, s 33

Case References:

The Owners of Strata Plan 57895 and Pyramid Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd [2017] WASAT 4

Orders

1. The proceedings are dismissed.

Summary

The applicant was one of 10 lot owners in a strata scheme comprising 24 lots, who lodged complaints with the Building Commissioner under s 5(1) of the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA) against the respondent. The strata company had lodged identical complaints.,The Tribunal found in related proceedings, The Owners of Strata Plan 57895 and Pyramid Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd [2017] WASAT 4, that the strata company was entitled to advance the complaints made in these proceedings as relating to common property and consequently that the applicant was not entitled to advance the same claims which were accordingly dismissed.

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : BUILDING SERVICES (COMPLAINT RESOLUTION and ADMINISTRATION) ACT 2011 (WA) CITATION : LIN and PYRAMID CONSTRUCTIONS (WA) PTY LTD [2017] WASAT 5 MEMBER : MR C RAYMOND (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)
    MR J FISHER (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)
HEARD : 4 AND 5 OCTOBER 2016 DELIVERED : 11 JANUARY 2017 FILE NO/S : CC 522 of 2016 BETWEEN : XI LIN
    Applicant

    AND

    PYRAMID CONSTRUCTIONS (WA) PTY LTD
    Respondent

Catchwords:

Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA) ­ Complaints by individual lot owners in strata scheme and by strata company in respect of same alleged faulty and unsatisfactory regulated building services ­ Whether applicant or strata company appropriate complainant

Legislation:

Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), s 5(1), s 11(1)(d)


Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), s 17, s 33

Result:

Proceedings dismissed


Summary of Tribunal's decision:

The applicant was one of 10 lot owners in a strata scheme comprising 24 lots, who lodged complaints with the Building Commissioner under s 5(1) of the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA) against the respondent. The strata company had lodged identical complaints.


The Tribunal found in related proceedings, The Owners of Strata Plan 57895 and Pyramid Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd [2017] WASAT 4,that the strata company was entitled to advance the complaints made in these proceedings as relating to common property and consequently that the applicant was not entitled to advance the same claims which were accordingly dismissed.

Category: B


Representation:

Counsel:


    Applicant : No Appearance
    Respondent : Mr R Shaw

Solicitors:

    Applicant : N/A
    Respondent : Lavan Legal



Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

The Owners of Strata Plan 57895 and Pyramid Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd [2017] WASAT 4

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

1 The applicant, Mr Xi Lin, lodged a complaint with the Building Commissioner pursuant to s 5(1) of the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA) (BSCRA Act) relating to a regulated building service provided by Pyramid Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd in the construction of a multistorey strata titled apartment building at 128 Brown Street, East Perth. The strata scheme is known as Urbano Uno. Mr Lin is the owner of strata Lot 2 being one of the apartments in the development which is described in strata plan 57895 registered on 27 January 2016. The strata company, incorporated on such registration occurring, being the Owners of Strata Plan 57895 (strata company), lodged a complaint with the Building Commissioner in respect of the same items of complaint and in respect of many other items of complaint.

2 It appears this complaint and complaints lodged by nine other lot owners completely overlapped the items of complaint made by the strata company to avoid the risk of any complaint item failing by reason of lack of standing. Under s 33 of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) (ST Act) where the proprietors of lots the subject of a scheme are jointly entitled to take proceedings the strata company is expressly empowered to take the proceedings. The owners of such lots are entitled to jointly take proceedings in respect of the common property included within the scheme as common property is held by the proprietors as tenants in common in shares proportional to their unit entitlements (s 17 ST Act). On the other hand, a strata company has no standing to make a claim in respect of damage to a lot the title of which is held by the proprietor thereof.

3 All of these complaints were referred by the Building Commissioner to the Tribunal for determination pursuant to s 11(1)(d) of the BSCRA Act.

4 The 11 separate matters were listed for hearing over three days commencing on 4 October 2016. Due primarily to the extent of agreement reached by the expert witnesses in conferral prior to the hearing in accordance with the Tribunal's usual practices, the hearing was concluded in two days. The matters had not been consolidated. At the commencement of the hearing the Tribunal directed that the matters be heard together and that the evidence be evidence in all matters.

5 In the strata company proceedings, The Owners of Strata Plan 57895 and Pyramid Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd [2017] WASAT 4, the Tribunal dealt with all of the complaints duplicated in these proceedings relating to Lot 2 and we incorporate by reference the reasons for decision in that matter. The strata company has been ordered in those proceedings to give a copy of the Tribunal's reasons for decision to all applicants who have applied for orders in respect of the same items of complaint, within seven days of receipt of those reasons for decision.

6 The Tribunal found the strata company was entitled to a remedial work order in respect of one item of complaint, and gave leave for one other complaint to be withdrawn. The remaining items of complaint, save one, were dismissed. The exception related to complaint item 2.2 concerning cracks on the top of a corner window door between the dining room and balcony which the Tribunal held did not relate to common property and consequently that the claim could only be advanced by Mr Lin. However, the Tribunal found that the claim failed on its merits. As the Tribunal accepted that the strata company could advance all other claims as they related to common property it follows that Mr Lin is not entitled to do so in his own right and that all items of complaint raised by Mr Lin fall to be dismissed.




Order


    The Tribunal will accordingly issue an order:

      1. The proceedings are dismissed.

    I certify that this and the preceding [6] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.

    ___________________________________

    MR C RAYMOND, SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER


Details
AGLC
Lin and Pyramid Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd [2017] WASAT 5
Case
[2017] WASAT 5
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Lin, sought to bring a claim against the respondent, Pyramid Constructions, under the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA) concerning alleged faulty and unsatisfactory regulated building services. Lin, an individual lot owner in a strata scheme, was seeking to bring the claim on behalf of herself and other lot owners, as well as on behalf of the strata company. The strata company itself had already made a complaint against Pyramid Constructions regarding the same issues. The court was tasked with determining whether Lin or the strata company was the appropriate party to bring the complaint.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Lin, as an individual lot owner, had the standing to bring the complaint under the Act, given that the strata company had already made a complaint. The court needed to interpret the relevant provisions of the Act and consider the relationship between individual lot owners and the strata company in the context of strata title schemes. Additionally, the court had to determine if there was any merit in Lin's argument that she had a separate and distinct interest in bringing the complaint, distinct from that of the strata company.

The court found that the statutory scheme established by the Act was designed to ensure that complaints about regulated building services were brought by those with the most direct interest, typically the strata company. The court held that the Act provided a clear mechanism for the strata company to bring complaints on behalf of all lot owners, and that it did not intend for individual lot owners to also bring complaints independently. Consequently, the court concluded that Lin's claim was not appropriate as it duplicated the strata company's complaint and did not align with the statutory objectives of the Act.

The proceedings were dismissed, as the court found that Lin did not have the standing to bring the complaint independently of the strata company. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the statutory framework designed to resolve complaints efficiently and effectively within strata schemes.

Orders

Orders of the court

Proceedings dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.