Held, finding proper cause for disciplinary action and imposing sanctions:

• The Tribunal finds that the company has contravened ss 28(1)(c), (e) and (f), 12(1)(b), 50 and 51 of the BWC Act and that there is accordingly proper cause for taking disciplinary action against the company;
• The Tribunal does not find that there is cause for disciplinary action against the respondents in respect of the quality of work issues or the manner in which the respondents dealt with the same;
• The first respondent is reprimanded.

Building Work Contractors - Complaints against building work contractors - Complaint by consumer- Proper cause of disciplinary action - Acting contrary to the Act or unlawfully, improperly, negligently, or unfairly in the course of conducting the business of the contractor - Reprimand

Building Work Contractors Act 1995 ss 12, 21, 25, 28, 50, 51

1. This is an application pursuant to Part 4 of the Building Work Contractors Act 1995 ('the Act' or 'BWC Act') for disciplinary action to be taken against a building work contractor. The application was made on 14 November 2024. The application is brought, not by the Commissioner, but by a private individual (as is allowed under the BWC Act, unlike, for example, matters involving health practitioners where the relevant board institutes proceedings). Directions were made on 7 July 2025 listing the matter for full hearing.
2. During the pre-trial steps the Commissioner was invited to participate, and attended at the directions hearing on 19 March 2025, but the Commissioner did not wish to participate in the full hearing.
3. For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that Ironside Co Pty Ltd trading as Proz-AT Bathroom Renovations has contravened the following provisions of the Act: ss 28(1)(c),(e) and (f) relating to form of contract and absence of consumer rights notice required by the Act; s 12(1)(b) relating to supervision; s 50 relating to absence of licence number on advertising; and s 51 relating to signage.

1. Neither the applicant nor Mrs Dunne attended the full hearing. Attempts were made to call the applicant by telephone unsuccessfully.
2. The applicant, Mr Dunne, has been assisted by his wife, Mrs Dunne at earlier directions hearing and in the preparation of submissions. It is apparent from the email and text messages in evidence that Mrs Dunne has been the primary person communicating with the respondents whilst the work was being undertaken and when a dispute arose. (This is not a criticism, but it is relevant to the reason why the Tribunal proceeded with an oral hearing). It is also noted that Mrs Dunne was a party named on the quotation, and the quotation was accepted by email from Mrs Dunne.
3. Directions were made on 7 July listing the matter for full hearing.
4. On 29 October the Tribunal received the following request:

Mr Dunne seeks an application to hear this matter in (sic) the papers, given the attached medical report he isn't well enough to further participate in these proceedings. He is satisfied that he has already presented the tribunal with sufficient details to determine the matter.

5. The Tribunal did not approve the last-minute request, and the matter proceeded to hearing on 30 October 2025. The medical report that was provided by Mrs Dunne was prepared by an occupational therapist and is entitled 'functional capacity/home and living assessment report'. It was prepared for the purposes of evaluating the applicant's functional abilities, care needs and environmental barriers. It provides recommendations for Mr Dunne's supports in the context of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Dunne has a progressive neurodegenerative condition, which causes limitations in self-care, communication, safety and independent living. Based on the contents of the report, Mr Dunne's condition is a long term one.
6. Mrs Dunne has assisted Mr Dunne in other matters before the Tribunal and at earlier hearings in this matter. The Tribunal accordingly formed the view that the appropriate course was for the matter to proceed.
7. In the circumstances, and noting that Mrs Dunne's email summarised earlier requested a hearing 'on the papers', the Tribunal proceeded with the hearing, and has had regard to the documents lodged on behalf of the applicant and respondent, as well as the evidence of the respondent. The Tribunal was comprised of a senior member and an assessor, namely Mr Chris Short.
8. Section 21 of the BWC Act provides that there is cause for disciplinary action against a building work contractor if, amongst other things, the contractor has acted contrary to the Act, or otherwise unlawfully, or improperly, negligently or unfairly, in the course of conducting the business of the contractor.
9. The application as filed was against Mr Bjorne Hards Trading as Proz-A Tiling.
10. During the course of the matter, it became apparent that the business conducted by Mr Hards is conducted through a company, Ironside Co Pty Ltd ('the company'), and the matter proceeded on the basis that both Mr Hards personally and the company are parties.
11. The company has a number of registered business names. These include Proz-AT Tiling.
12. Mr Hards has a building licence in his personal name. It was granted in 2009. The categories include, as a building work contractor, matters relating to bathroom renovations and tiling, and as a building work supervisor for bathroom renovations, cabinets, shower screens and wall & floor tiling. The licence records that he is the supervisor for the company.
13. The company also has a builder's licence. The trading names include Proz-AT Tiling, and Proz-AT Bathroom Renovations. Mr Hards is recorded as the director and supervisor. For completeness the Tribunal notes that the applicant provided the Tribunal only with partial copies of Bjorne Hard's licence from the CBS website and the Tribunal looked up the complete copy of the licence for Bjorne Hards, the company and Graham Hards.
14. The issues arise in the context that the applicant and his wife Mrs Dunne initially engaged Dave's Bathrooms to do a bathroom renovation. The work was funded by the NDIS. The work was completed. There is a dispute about the work. The builder instituted proceedings in the Magistrates Court of South Australia to recover unpaid invoices. Mr Dunne has brought separate disciplinary proceedings in this Tribunal against that contractor. He also brought separate disciplinary proceedings under the BWC Act against a firm of occupational therapists. Those proceedings were dismissed on the basis that the Tribunal found that occupational therapists are not building work contractors or building consultants, and not subject to the regime for disciplinary sanction under the BWC Act. That was a legal issue, and no credibility findings were made in respect to the action against the occupational therapists. Proz-AT Tiling & Bathroom Renovations was engaged by Mr and Mrs Dunne after the work of Dave's Bathrooms was completed.
15. The issues to be dealt with are set out in the applicant's document entitled 'Further and Better Particulars' filed on 30 January 2025. There are about 500 pages of evidence which have been filed. Rather than summarise every single piece of paper these reasons distil the key issues and the Tribunal's findings in relation to the key issues.

1. Mr and Mrs Dunne were provided with a detailed quotation dated 22 May 2024.
2. The terms of the quotation are detailed. A $1000 deposit was required. The works were quoted at $24,684. The scope of works is set out in detail. Pages 4-7 are entitled 'Terms of Trade'.
3. The quotation document gives details of the ABN number, and makes clear that the ABN number belongs to the company trading as Proz-AT Tiling, Proz-AT Bathroom Renovations and Proz-AT Group.
4. The quotation was accepted in writing and the deposit paid.
5. Section 28 of the BWC Act sets out the formal requirements in respect of a building work contract.
6. Not all of those matters were complied with.
7. First, s 28(1)(c) provides, amongst other things, that the contract must include the contractor's licence number.
8. On the basis that the Tribunal finds that the quotation constitutes a contract in writing, the quotation did not include the contractor's licence number.
9. Second, s 28(1)(e) provides that the contract must be signed by the building work contractor and the building owner personally or through an authorised agent. The contract is not signed by or on behalf of the company, or by the building owner. Having said that there is an email acceptance of the terms of the quotation. We do find that s 28(1)(e) has been contravened.
10. Third, under s 28(1)(f) there was an obligation to provide the owners with a notice in prescribed form containing the prescribed information. Those details are contained in Schedule 3 to the Building Work Contractors Regulations 2011. The matters contained in that form are important information from a consumer protection perspective. Amongst other things, the notice gives the owner important information about cooling off rights, progress payments, statutory warranties, variations in price, disputes, and where a consumer should go for advice.
11. The notice required under the regulations was not provided.
12. The Tribunal accordingly finds that the company has breached ss 28(1)(c), 28(1)(e), and 28(1)(f) of the Act.
13. The respondent accepted at the hearing that these contraventions occurred. He also told the Tribunal that he has changed his practices as to the way in which contracts are prepared, and the information they contain, so as to not contravene in the future.
14. We did not accept the other complaints made by the applicant about contractual issues. We do not find that there was a term not recorded in writing that the work was to be finished in two weeks. We do not find that the company was in partnership with any other person, though as set out below the company did engage other contractors and supervisors to carry the work out.

1. Mr Hards (who was recorded on the company's licence as the supervisor) did not personally supervise the work.
2. Instead, subcontractors were engaged. Those subcontractors each had a building work contractors licence. The tiling work was done by a James Kalusche. The Tribunal has been provided with his licence which shows he is licenced to do wall and floor tiling work. They were supervised by Graham Hards. Mr Graham Hards is a registered supervisor. His licence shows that he is authorised to supervise works relating to bathroom renovations.
3. Section 12 of the Act provides that building work must be supervised by registered and approved supervisors. As set out above, the company had a licence, and it has a registered building work supervisor. Subsection 12(1)(b) provides that building work must be properly supervised by a registered building work supervisor who is so approved in relation to the contractor's business and whose registration authorises supervision of the building work of that kind.
4. Thus, the work was performed by a licenced contractor, and supervised by a registered supervisor.
5. The question is whether the fact that the company's registered supervisor, Mr Bjorne Hards, was not personally supervising means the section is breached.
6. The Tribunal could not find an authority directly on point. The parties did not make any detailed submissions. As set out earlier, the Commissioner did not wish to make submissions in this matter.
7. The Tribunal understands that the scenario identified above happens commonly in the industry. That it might commonly happen however does not necessarily mean it is consistent with the Act. In order to properly understand the interpretation, it is worth setting out the provision in full, highlighting the key words:

12 - Building work must be supervised by registered and approved supervisors > > (1) A licensed building work contractor must ensure - > > (a) that there is a registered building work supervisor approved by the Commissioner under this Act as a building work supervisor in relation to the contractor's business at all times during the currency of the licence; and

[Pausing there, the Tribunal is satisfied that (a) poses no difficulty for the respondents - Mr Bjorne Hards is so approved.]

(b) that building work of any kind performed under the authority of the licence is properly supervised by a registered building work supervisor -

[Pausing there the Tribunal is satisfied that these introductory words pose no difficulty for the respondents - there was a registered building work supervisor who supervised the works - Mr Graham Hards.]

(i) who is so approved in relation to the contractor's business; and

(ii) whose registration authorises the supervision of building work of that kind.

[Pausing here the difficulty for the respondents is that whilst Graham Hards is approved by the Commissioner as a registered supervisor in relation to bathroom renovations, the licences do not show that he is approved in relation to the company's business, where Bjorne Hards is the person approved by the Commissioner]

(4) The Commissioner may, on application by a licensed building work contractor, exempt the contractor from compliance with subsection (1) for a period and subject to conditions determined by the Commissioner if the Commissioner is satisfied that the contractor has made suitable arrangements for all building work performed under the authority of the licence to be properly supervised by a person who is, in the opinion of the Commissioner, competent to perform that function.

1. On balance, the Tribunal finds that the intention of the Act is that a building work contractor (here, the company) must ensure that the work performed under its licence (here the renovation of Mr and Mrs Dunne's bathroom) is supervised by the person approved by the Commissioner to be the supervisor in connection with the business of the company (here Mr Bjorne Hards). The Act provides an ability for the Commissioner to grant an exemption where the contractor has made suitable arrangements for the work to be supervised by someone else, but connotes that this needs to be specifically applied for.
2. The question then becomes whether Mr Bjorne Hards can say that he did properly supervise, without visiting the site, because he ensured that there were only licenced contractors during the works, and they were supervised by someone who is a registered supervisor.
3. Accordingly, whilst the matter is not free from doubt, the Tribunal is satisfied that the intention behind s 12 is that the contractor's supervisor must take an active role in supervision. What will amount to proper supervision will vary from case to case. A supervisor does not need to be on site every second of the day. But completely delegating the function of supervision to someone else does not sit with the language of the Act.
4. The Tribunal accordingly finds that there was a breach of s 12 of the Act.

1. The company has a website. The website currently displays the builder's licence number for the company. However, back in April 2024 when Mr Dunne accessed it, it did not.
2. Section 50 of the Act prohibits advertising without the name of the contractor and the licence number of the contractor. The Tribunal finds that the website is a form of advertising. It did not include the licence number. The company accordingly contravened s 50 of the Act.

1. Section 51 of the BWC Act requires a sign to be erected on site that shows the contractor's name and licence number. No signage was erected on site.
2. The company has accordingly contravened s 51 of the Act.

Negligence, unfairness, fitness - s 21(c) of the BWC Act

1. Part of the applicant's arguments relate to dissatisfaction with the quality of the work performed.
2. Section 21(1)(c), which deals with cause for disciplinary action includes the phrase 'the contractor or another person has acted contrary to this Act or otherwise unlawfully, or improperly, negligently or unfairly, in the course of conducting, or being employed or otherwise engaged in, the business of the contractor'.
3. At about 20 July 2024 the respondents considered that the work had been finished. However, concerns were raised about water ponding on the floor around the drainage point in the floor. Mr Hards sent the tiler back to redo the falls. Text messages with photos were exchanged on 27 July 2024 showing the rectification work in progress. By email of 2 August 2024 Mrs Dunne advised that she would be getting a building report and raised concern about the colour of the grout and that water was running behind the toilet and ponding.
4. Mr and Mrs Dunne obtained a report from Andrew Skinner about the works. Mr Skinner's opinion was that the levels for the fall to floor waste outside the shower were insufficient and that a drainage test indicated that pooling of water had occurred. He also indicated that there was no overflow device in the basin in the vanity unit, which in turn meant that there needed to be falls towards the drain near the vanity. He was not sure whether a waterstop had been installed and said one needs to be installed. Mr Hards gave evidence, which we accept, that a waterstop has been installed by the doorway. Mr Hards did not challenge Mr Skinner's conclusions (other than in respect of the waterstop). We note (although it was not argued) that an alternative to retiling the floor might be to insert an overflow device to the basin.
5. Mr Hards was keen to do rectification work. Numerous emails were exchanged on the topic of whether the company could do rectification work. They included an email from Mr Hards on 28 August 2-24 stating:

Our obligations are to perform the repair, which we need to be given access in order to assess, and perform our right to repair. After which, we can write a report on our planned actions, and book in time to complete the work. > > Please confirm our allowance for access tomorrow morning, Thursday 29th August at around 10am, by close of business, 5pm today, or please confirm that you are denying us access for an inspection for our right to repair that you previously have requested from us?

6. Mr Hards gave details of rectification work proposed on 30 August 2024.
7. Emails continued to be exchanged in September and October with Mrs Dunne writing on 18 October 2024:

You were given your right to repair already. You enacted that repair and your workmanship still didn't meet standards. > > We have no confidence in your abilities nor workmanship re AS and NCC compliance for unclosed showers. This non-compliance has being detailed in Andrew Skinners building report. > > We request a full refund so that another contractor can be engaged to correct your non-compliant work. (If the work is more than the refund, you will be required to pay the extra). > > We request you also pay Andrew Skinners report, $770, that was required to confirm your non compliance. > > We also request immediate provision of plumbing coc, that you have not provided, despite us requesting this from you.

8. On 11 November 2024 the applicant filed a 'Final Notice' document in the Magistrates Court of South Australia against Bjorne Hards claiming damages of $60,000. Instead of pursuing that claim, the applicant has instituted these proceedings.
9. The upshot of the emails was that Mr and Mrs Dunne did not want the company to do rectification work, as it had already unsuccessfully tried to rectify, and that their money should be refunded and additional compensation paid.
10. Whilst the evidence supports a finding that there was defective work performed, it does not follow that the applicant was necessarily entitled to damages of $60,000 or that the company was acting unreasonably in a way that justifies disciplinary action being taken. Mr Hards did not 'wash his hands' of a problem, but was actively trying to solve it. In those circumstances the Tribunal does not find that there is cause for disciplinary action against the respondents in respect of the quality of work issues or the manner in which the respondents dealt with the same.

1. The Tribunal finds that the company has contravened the following sections of the BWC Act and that there is accordingly proper cause for taking disciplinary action against the company:

1. Section 25 of the Act sets out the kinds of orders that the Tribunal may make.
2. The applicant submits that Mr Hards and his company are not proper people to hold a builder's licence and that the licence should be cancelled and he should be disqualified from being licenced.
3. The Tribunal does not accept that submission.
4. Mr Hards has given evidence of steps he has taken to change the company's practices. These were triggered by the events of this action and a letter from Consumer and Business Services. It is noted that the applicant originally requested that Consumer and Business Services take action against the respondents. CBS considered that request. By letter of 13 May 2025 it informed Mr Hards that there was information suggesting there could be a failure to comply with ss 28, 30 and 50 of the Act, and stated in that letter that whilst it did not conduct an investigation or reach a final conclusion it was reminding Mr Hards of his legal obligations and providing a formal warning. Following that warning Mr Hards has obtained advice and changed his practices.
5. He presented to the Tribunal as an honest and reliable person.
6. He made appropriate admissions.
7. He expressed a willingness to undertake rectification work. The Tribunal finds he was genuine in that willingness.
8. In so far as the contractual requirements are concerned, there is a contract in writing (albeit not signed). It did not have the builders licence number on it. The licence number did not appear on signage or advertising. In so far as supervision is concerned it is noted that the work was actually performed by licenced people and supervised by a registered supervisor approved by the Commissioner - just not the supervisor approved by the Commissioner in connection with the company's business. The breaches are accordingly made out, but this is the first time disciplinary action has been taken, and it is relevant that Mr Hards is taking active steps to ensure that lessons have been learned and future contraventions avoided.
9. The Tribunal accepts that his breaches of the Act arose through ignorance as opposed to any deliberate flouting of statutory obligations.
10. The provisions which have been contravened do have a consumer protection element to them. It is accordingly appropriate that the Tribunal makes orders that reflect a disapproval of the conduct giving rise to the contraventions.
11. The Tribunal finds that it is appropriate to reprimand the company for its breaches.
12. The Tribunal considers that suspensions, cancelation or disqualification orders would be disproportionate to the gravity of the contraventions and declines to make such orders. The Tribunal considered imposing a fine, but ultimately formed the view that in light of the matters described above, a reprimand was the appropriate order. The Tribunal also considered whether a separate reprimand was required against each respondent, but formed the view that as the conduct relates to the company's business, and this is the first time either respondent has been the subject of disciplinary proceedings that the reprimand will be against the company.

1. The Tribunal imposes the following disciplinary action:

a) Ironside Co Trading Pty Ltd is reprimanded for the following breaches of the BWC Act: ss 28(1)(c), (e) and (f); s 12(1)(b); ss 50; and 51.