1. The Applicants' application to extend time is granted.
2. The Respondent is to file and serve any responsive expert report by 4:00 pm on 26 January 2026. Any report should comply with Practice Direction 1 (Expert Witness Code of Conduct).
3. If the Respondent and its appointed expert(s) require access to the Applicants' property for the purposes of compiling the expert report in order 2 above, then the Respondent is to seek the applicants' permission in writing for that inspection to occur on no less than five business days written notice, and the Applicants are directed to permit that inspection.
4. The proceeding is listed for a mediation on a date to be advised by the Registry not before 6 February 2026.
5. There be liberty to apply to Member Brimfield for further directions if required.

Catchwords: Residential building - Meaning of "residential building work" in Residential Building Work Contracts and Dispute Resolution Act 2016 - What building disputes does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear - Whether driveway works carried out separately from a dwelling are residential - Parliament's intention in granting Tribunal jurisdiction to deal with building disputes.

Extension of time - Factors relevant to granting an extension of time for residential building disputes - Inconsistent limitation periods between Tribunal and Courts.

Legislation Cited: Residential Building Work Contracts and Dispute Resolution Act 2016; Residential Building (Miscellaneous Consumer Protection Amendments) Act 2023; Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2021; Acts interpretation Act 1931 (Tas); Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic); Home Building Act 1989 (NSW); Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020

Cases Cited: Viccars v Leader Earthworks Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATCD; Dinneen v EE Construct & Landscaping Pty Ltd [2023] VCAT 1212; Maclaw No 651 Pty Ltd v HIH Casualty and General Insurance Limited [1999] VCAT 24; [1999] 15 VAR 302; Shao v AG Advanced Construction Pty Ltd [2019] VSCA 93; Allianz v Waterbrook [2009] NSWCA 224; Grygiel v Baine and Others [2005] NSWCA 218; Winslow Constructors Pty Ltd v Mt Holden Estates Pty Ltd [2004] VSCA 159.

1. Before me is an application to extend time to permit the Applicants to commence a residential building work proceeding. Bound up with this application is the question of whether or not the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the dispute.
2. The Applicants, Patrick Fagan and Suzanne Ormshaw, have applied to the Tribunal for determination of their dispute with the Respondent regarding building works, namely the completion of a concrete driveway. The Applicants have brought their claim under the Residential Building Work Contracts and Dispute Resolution Act 2016 (which for convenience I will refer to as the Building Works Act).
3. The Applicants own their property at 32 Bayview Road, Lauderdale. They allege that they engaged the respondent, Mr Zak Waller, who trades as Luxe Concrete by Design, on or about 12 March 2024, to construct an exposed aggregate concrete driveway of 165 square metres at the property for a fixed price of $27,230.00, including GST.
4. The Applicants have claimed that the Respondent's work is defective, in that shrinkage cracks and other aesthetic issues have developed, which allegedly arise out of issues with the driveway's construction. The Applicants rely on two expert reports. The Respondent denies that the driveway is defective, and is yet to file expert evidence.
5. Only recently the Tribunal obtained jurisdiction to deal with residential building work under the Building Works Act, by virtue of the Residential Building (Miscellaneous Consumer Protection Amendments) Act 2023, which was proclaimed to commence on 1 July 2024. In the second reading speech of this amending act, delivered on 28 March 2023, the relevant minister said as follows:

Moving residential building disputes to the TASCAT will make it simpler, faster and cheaper to resolve such disputes, and dramatically improve the resolution of building disputes within Tasmania.

Mr Speaker, this Bill provides the TASCAT with original jurisdiction to hear residential building work dispute matters. This will bring Tasmania in line with other jurisdictions and will be an important step in providing a more timely and cost-effective dispute resolution pathway for Tasmanian property owners and building contractors alike.

Under the Bill, a residential building work dispute application may be lodged with the TASCAT if the parties to the dispute have attempted mediation and a certificate of mediation has been issued by the mediation panel appointed by the Director of Building Control. A building dispute application can then be lodged to the TASCAT, which is an application for the commencement of proceedings.

1. Section 59 of the Building Works Act, as amended in 2023, gives the Tribunal jurisdiction to determine whether "residential building work" has been completed satisfactorily, complies with the requirements of that Act, or any other Act which is applicable to the building works, and to determine disputes between parties to a residential building work contract, amongst other things. Summarised, there exists a relatively broad jurisdiction to resolve residential building disputes between an owner and a builder.
2. Before a party can come to the Tribunal to resolve a residential building work dispute, they must first lodge a Notice of Dispute with the Director of Building Control, who may then direct the parties to a mediation or otherwise decide that the dispute is better dealt with by a Court or Tribunal. That is what occurred in this case when on 17 June 2025, the Applicants filed a Notice of Dispute, and on 16 July 2025, when the Director rejected that notice under section 48(3)(d) of the Building Works Act on the basis that the respondent was not willing to participate in the mediation process. By virtue of section 59(2) of the Building Works Act, the Tribunal only has jurisdiction to resolve a residential building work dispute, once a Notice of Dispute has been rejected by the Director, or that the parties have participated in the mediation process. In other words, there is a gateway to seeking relief before the Tribunal under this jurisdiction.
3. Rule 5(4) of the TASCAT Rules provides that an application to the Tribunal must be made within 28 days from the day which the applicants became entitled under the relevant legislation to make the application to the Tribunal, unless a different period is specified in the relevant legislation. The Building Works Act does not specify a period of time in which the applicants were to make the application. Therefore, they had 28 days from the date that the director rejected their notice of dispute on 16 July 2025 to file their application with the Tribunal. In other words, the applicants had until 14 August 2025 to file their application and as it was not made until 21 August 2025, the application was seven days late. Rule 11 of the TASCAT Rules permits the Tribunal to extend or abridge time. The discretion to do so is unfettered.
4. However, there would be no utility in granting the applicants an extension of time if the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with their dispute. Accordingly these reasons will first address whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the Applicants' dispute, and secondly, if the Tribunal does have jurisdiction, should time be extended?

1. There has not been, as far as I can find, any prior case in a Tasmanian court or the Tribunal which considers the limits of what works the Building Works Act applies to. As stated above, the Applicants' claim is solely in respect of concreting and driveway works carried out by the Respondent. Whilst it might seem relatively straightforward to determine whether driveway works are within the scope of the Act or not, the applicability of the residential/domestic building legislation to driveway works has been an issue which has vexed tribunals in other jurisdictions dealing with equivalent legislation.[1]
2. The Applicants gave evidence at the hearing that when they purchased their property in 2020, the house was already constructed. Before the driveway was constructed, the house was surrounded by bitumen and landscaping. Therefore, the driveway works were not carried out contemporaneously with any wider dwelling construction works.
3. The Applicants relied on a detailed written outline of submissions which they had had prepared by a legal practitioner. That practitioner did not appear at the hearing. The Respondent limited his submissions to asserting that he did not think his work as a concreter was captured by the Building Works Act.
4. The question is whether the construction of the driveway is a residential building work to which the Building Works Act applies. As to what a "residential building" is, this is defined at section 5(1) of the Act:

(1) In this Act, a residential building is a building, or structure, that is classified under Volume One of the NCC as -

(c) a class 10 building, if that building is associated with a class 1a building or class 2 building.

1. The definition of residential building under the Act is designed to encompass houses (Class 1a buildings under the National Construction Code, or NCC), apartments or units in complexes (Class 2 buildings under the NCC), and garages, carports and sheds (Class 10 buildings under the NCC), but only if they are associated with a house or apartment building.
2. As to what "residential building work" means, this is defined at section 6 of the Act.

(f) structures or devices to mitigate the fire hazard in respect of special fire hazard buildings, within the meaning of the Building Regulations; and

(b) a system of sewage, or of sullage, drainage or removal; or

(c) a system of storm water drainage or roof drainage; or

(a) a system for lighting, heating, ventilation, air conditioning or cooling;

(2) For the purposes of this Act, the following work is residential building work:

(a) erecting, re-erecting, constructing, altering, repairing, underpinning, demolishing or removing a residential building;

(b) adding to, or removing a part of, a residential building;

(c) the restoration, maintenance, renovation, alteration, extension, improvement or repair of a residential building;

(d) work, on the land on which building work referred to in paragraph (a) , (b) or (c) is being, or is to be, carried out, that is work in preparation for the use of that land for residential purposes or in preparation for that or other residential building work, including, but not limited to -

(i) work required to gain access, or to remove impediments to access, to that land, part of that land or other land related to any other residential building work, including the construction of a road to enable access to the residential building or to that land or part of that land; and

(ii) site clearance, earth moving, excavation, tunnelling, boring and filling; and

(iv) the erection, maintenance or dismantling of plant and equipment; and

(v) work required in preparation for the erection of a prefabricated dwelling;

(e) all associated work carried out in conjunction with work referred to in paragraph (a) , (b) or (c) including, but not limited to -

(i) the provision, installation, alteration, repair or removal, of all, or a part of, a relevant system in relation to the residential building or the land on which the residential building is, or is to be, situated; and

(ii) the erection, re-erection, construction, alteration, repair or removal of buildings, structures and fixtures associated with a residential building; and

(iii) the cleaning, painting and decorating of the inside and outside surfaces of the residential building; and

(f) the prefabrication of any component that is to form part of a residential building, including the manufacture of a prefabricated dwelling, regardless of where that prefabrication is carried out;

(g) any work carried out on any part of a prefabricated dwelling, or on any prefabricated component of a dwelling, in preparation for the erection of the prefabricated dwelling or component, regardless of where that work is carried out;

(h) any other work that is prescribed by the regulations to be residential building work.

(3) Although a caravan, motor vehicle, trailer, aeroplane or boat is not a residential building, if the caravan, motor vehicle, trailer, aeroplane or boat is, or is to be, used as a residence on any land, the following work is residential building work:

(a) all work done in relation to the use of the land for residential purposes, including, but not limited to, landscaping, paving and the erection, construction or removal of any building or fixture associated with the caravan, motor vehicle, trailer, aeroplane or boat;

(b) the provision of water supply, sewerage or drainage to the land on which the caravan, motor vehicle, trailer, aeroplane or boat is, or is to be, situated;

(c) loading, unloading or transporting a building or structure that, if fixed to land, could be a residential building, regardless of whether the loading, unloading or transportation is solely on the land on which the building or structure was or is to be located;

(d) loading, unloading or transporting a prefabricated building or structure that, if fixed to land, could be a residential building, regardless of whether -

(i) the building or structure is whole or in parts; and

(ii) the loading, unloading or transportation is solely on the land on which the building or structure was or is to be located;

(e) any other work that is prescribed by the regulations to be residential building work in relation to the land on which the caravan, motor vehicle, trailer, aeroplane or boat is, or is to be, situated.

(4) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) , buildings and fixtures associated with a residential building or a caravan, motor vehicle, trailer, aeroplane or boat include, but are not limited to, passageways, retaining structures, driveways, paths, fencing, paving, garages, carports, workshops, storage sheds, swimming pools and spas.

(5) Despite subsections (2) and (3) , the following work is not residential building work for the purposes of this Act:

(b) any work that is exempted from the application of this Act in accordance with section 10 ;

(c) work for the purposes of the subdivision of land;

(d) work in relation to a building, caravan, motor vehicle, trailer, aeroplane, or boat, intended to be used only for business purposes;

(e) work in relation to a building, caravan, motor vehicle, trailer, aeroplane, or boat, intended to be used only for the accommodation of animals;

(f) other work that is prescribed by the regulations not to be residential building work.

1. I consider the following propositions are relevant to the task of determining whether works fit within the definition of residential building work:
   1. Firstly, it is not relevant as to whether the parties intended by their contract that the works be captured by the Building Works Act. The determination as to whether the Act applies must be possible by the application of objective criteria, with the subjective intent of the owner and the contractor being irrelevant.[2]
   2. Secondly, the act is in the nature of consumer protection legislation, and should be interpreted in a manner consistent with that objective.[3]
   3. Thirdly, and having regard to the consumer protection aims of the Act, the Tribunal should not approach the task of determination of whether a claim before it involves residential building works in an arbitrary or unduly restrictive manner.[4]
2. For this dispute to be within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, the building works complained of must be able to fit within the definition of one of the subcategories under section 6(2) of the Act. If they do not, then the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the dispute.[5]
3. Discerning whether the driveway works carried out by the respondent fits within the definition of residential building works set out in section 6(2) of the Building Works Act is not made easy by the complicated drafting of this section. It has been held in other jurisdictions, namely Victoria and New South Wales, that the equivalent Acts in those states (which are drafted in a similar but not identical way) are not intended to encapsulate works such as concreting, landscaping, fencing or the construction of retaining walls unless there is a temporal connection with wider residential building works, which are usually carried out by a registered building practitioner. Often contractors who carry out these smaller works will not be registered building practitioners, because the applicable licencing regimes do not require registration given that the work is lower risk work than constructing a dwelling.
4. The construction of the driveway as separate from the home does not involve the erection, re‑erection, construction, alteration, repairing, underpinning, demolishing, or removal of a residential building. A driveway is not a Class 1, 2 or 10 structure under the NCC, and therefore, is not a residential building. Accordingly, section 6(2)(a) can be put to one side.
5. I come to whether the building works fit within section 6(2)(b) later in these reasons.
6. As for whether the works fit within the definition in section 6(2)(c), which concern the restoration, maintenance, renovation, alteration, extension, improvement or repair of the residential building, the Applicants submitted that I should accept that the driveway works are encapsulated by this section. In doing so, the applicant submitted that where a provision of legislation is ambiguous or obscure, then the Tribunal can have reference to extrinsic material capable of assisting in the interpretation of that provision.[6] Particularly, they pointed me to the clause notes for section 6 of the Building Works Act contained in the Residential Building Work Contracts and Dispute Resolution Bill 2015, which provided as follows:

Defines the types of residential building work to which this Act applies, including fire systems, plumbing systems and gas supply systems.

Residential building work is taken to include any prefabrication of components

manufactured off site. So if the owner purchases a kit home, they are still covered under this Act.

The Act includes residential improvements including driveways, fences, retaining walls and landscaping.

1. The Applicants submitted that Parliament have made it clear that the Act applies to residential improvements, which is to include the driveways. They note that the word "improvements" is only stated once throughout the entirety of the Building Works Act, which is at section 6(2)(c). On this basis the applicants submit that it is clear that Parliament's intention is for the construction of a driveway at a residential property to constitute an improvement to a residential building, and so fall within the scope of "residential building work" under the Act.
2. Against that proposition is the decision of Member Edquist in Dinneen v EE Construct & Landscaping Pty Ltd [2023] VCAT 1212. In that case, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal was dealing with the question of whether landscaping works, which included paving, retaining structures, fencing and a driveway, were works concerned with the "renovation, alteration, extension, improvement or repair of a home" in the equivalent Victorian legislation, being the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic). At paragraph [49], Senior Member Edquist (an experienced building disputes Member) found that the works under that contracts were not concerned with the renovation, alteration, extension, improvement or repair of a home - which are broadly equivalent to the requirements contained in section 6(2)(c) of the Building Works Act. That authority, being an authority of a different Tribunal, dealing with different legislation, is not binding on me.
3. However, I am not satisfied that the works in this case fit within the definition under section 6(2)(c) of the Act. The works do not involve the restoration, maintenance, renovation or alteration of the residential building. All of those terms connote works being undertaken to what already exists. The term extension similarly involves the extension of something that already exists. As for the improvement of a residential building, I do not consider that the construction of a driveway is captured by this term. Whilst the driveway might be an improvement to a residential building, in the sense of a physical feature or addition which increases the value of the dwelling, the wording of improvement in this context appears to be an improvement to the condition of an existing residential building, such as a renovation. The inclusion of 'driveways' being listed as an improvement in the clause notes of the Bill is explicable on this basis. Lastly, the installation of a driveway does not involve the repair of a residential building.
4. Section 6(2)(d) relates to preparatory work that is carried out before a residential building is constructed. It is not relevant here.
5. Section 6(2)(e) includes within the definition of residential building work all "associated work" which are "carried out in conjunction with" any works referred to in subparagraphs (a), (b), or (c).
6. The phrases "associated work" and "carried out in conjunction with" are of some importance. In Winslow Constructors Pty Ltd v Mt Holden Estates Pty Ltd [2004] VSCA 159 at [55], Callaway JA and Buchanan JA found that those two terms were cognate concepts in the equivalent Victorian legislation, each which involved a degree of contemporaneity. At [119], Hansen AJA (with whom the majority agreed) opined that if works were carried out at a home years after it had been completed and left vacant, it could not be said that those works were "associated with" the original construction of the dwelling, because of the time that had passed between those works.
7. Therefore, I consider, that for residential building works to fit within the definition in section 6(2)(e), those works must be carried out at a similar time to the construction of the Class 1, Class 2 or Class 10 residential building. In this case, the driveway was constructed some many years after the house was constructed. Accordingly, the works do not fit within this section, and it can be put to one side.
8. Sections 6(2)(f)-(g) of the Building Works Act relate to prefabricated dwellings and are not relevant here. Equally, section 6(2)(h) relate to works which are prescribed by the relevant regulations to be residential building works. That is not relevant in this case.
9. Another part that is relevant to this enquiry is the wording at section 6(4) of the Act, which provides that for the purposes of the various categories listed above, driveways, paths and paving are to be taken as included within the definition of a building or fixture that is associated with a residential building. This requirement, by use of the words "associated with", still appears to import some element of contemporaneity with when the works are carried out.[7]
10. I now turn back to section 6(2)(b) of the Building Works Act. This section provides that where the works involve "adding to or removing part of a residential building", then the Act will apply. I observe that this wording is not found in equivalent legislation in other comparable jurisdictions.
11. The dictionary definition of the term "adding" means to "join (something) to something else so as to increase the size, number or amount," or to "put in (an additional element, ingredient, etc)".
12. Accordingly, if a homeowner engages a concreter to pour a concrete driveway which is physically connected to an existing residential dwelling, then they are adding to that existing residential building within the meaning of section 6(2)(b). I am fortified in this conclusion by the clause notes to the bill which I refer to above in which it is made explicit that that this section of the Act is intended to include residential improvements including "driveways, fences, retaining walls and landscaping". Nothing is said in those clause notes about the requirement for there to be a temporal connection between when those works are to be taken out.
13. Therefore, based on the plain wording of section 6(2)(b), I conclude that Parliament's intention was to include driveway works within the meaning of residential building work where that driveway 'adds' to an existing residential building, which I find that it does in this case. Therefore, I agree with the submissions made by the Applicants that the driveway works were residential building works, but not for the reasons set out by them in their submissions.
14. I also acknowledge that this interpretation means that contractors who undertake driveway works which add to an existing residential building may have their work captured by other requirements of the Building Works Act, including the requirement that contracts for these works are to be reduced to writing and that there be civil penalties for a contractor where they are not so reduced,[8] that there be a cooling off period in respect of any contract for these works,[8] that there be restrictions on the amount of deposits that can be taken by a contractor for these works,[8] and that the works be subject of the statutory warranties contained within the act which survive for the benefit of any successor in title of the property.[8]

1. Having satisfied myself that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the Applicants' claim, I now turn to their application for an extension of time.
2. As the Applicants identify in their submissions, the seven-day delay in commencing these proceedings is short.
3. Further, the Applicants provided an explanation for the delay. They submitted that the notice from the Director of Building Control, dated 16 July 2025, did not alert them to the timeframe in which they had to make their application to the Tribunal. The Applicants noted that they were self-represented and not legally trained. Implicit in this submission is that the Building Works Act is challenging to navigate.
4. I accept this explanation as credible. The requirements that need to be met before a party can bring a residential building work dispute in the Tribunal are set out in the Building Works Act, but this Act is silent on when that application must be made. Rather, one must go to the TASCAT Rules, a separate document. I can readily understand why confusion may arise for a self-represented party about the timeframe for submission.[8]
5. Further, the Applicants submitted that they had a strong case, relying on the two expert reports that were annexed to their application. I do not need to make any assessment of the merits of the Applicants' claim to resolve this application. Therefore, I had no regard to the strength of their claims.
6. Finally, the Applicants submitted that there is no prejudice to the respondent. I queried with the Respondent at the hearing whether he would suffer any prejudice if the Tribunal were to grant the extension. Whilst he indicated that he would, he did not identify how. I accept the Applicants' submission that no prejudice would be suffered by the Respondent if I were to grant the extension.
7. In all of the circumstances, the application for an extension is a strong one. I will grant the applicants their extension.
8. In assessing this application, I have also had regard to another matter. As I set out above, Parliament's apparent intention in giving TASCAT jurisdiction to resolve residential building disputes was to create a simpler and faster avenue for parties in Tasmania to resolve residential building disputes.[9] Parliament did not, as has occurred with other jurisdictions, give the Tribunal exclusive jurisdiction to resolve those disputes. Therefore, a party to a residential building dispute has a choice to litigate in either the Tribunal, or a court.
9. Most litigated building disputes concern the quality of the works carried out, and whether those works are defective. Almost invariably, those disputes will involve a question as to whether the statutory warranties contained within the Building Works Act have been breached. Parliament has created a statutory limitation period of six years, commencing from the date of practical completion of those building works, to bring a claim regarding breach of the statutory warranties.[9]
10. If a party to a residential building dispute were to miss the deadline to file an application in the Tribunal, then absent an extension of time, they would be permitted to file the very same dispute in a court, provided that the dispute was otherwise not statute barred.
11. Given Parliament's stated intention of creating a faster and more accessible avenue of resolving building disputes in the Tribunal, I consider that I should look flexibly upon an application for an extension of time such as this one. I consider that approach also is consistent with the Tribunal's overarching objectives to act with minimal formality and technicality.[9] Of course, every application for an extension needs to be judged on its own merits.

1. At the end of the hearing of the Applicants' application on 5 November 2025, I indicated to the parties that I would reserve my reasons, but if I were to find that the Tribunal had jurisdiction, that I wanted the matter to progress further without the need for a further directions hearing before me. I indicated to the parties that if I found that the Tribunal had jurisdiction, would be to allow the Respondent some time to put on any responsive expert material, and then have the parties attend a mediation arranged by the Tribunal.
2. The Respondent informed me at the hearing that he had an engineer inspect the driveway of the applicants' property, albeit without their permission, and without giving them prior notice. I indicated to the Respondent that it was not appropriate that this inspection be carried out without the Applicants' permission or having given the applicants any notice. The Applicants, of course, are obliged to assist with the resolution of the dispute, which means giving reasonable access to the property for the purposes of expert inspections when requested to do so.
3. Mr Waller was not able to tell me whether the engineer which he had briefed will need to inspect the property again in order to be able to draft a written report. Accordingly, the orders I make below will take into account the need for a potential further inspection.
4. The orders I make are as follows:
   1. The Applicants' application to extend time is granted.
5. The Respondent is to file and serve any responsive expert report by 4:00 pm on 16 January 2026. Any report should comply with Practice Direction 1 (Expert Witness Code of Conduct).
6. If the Respondent and its appointed expert(s) require access to the Applicants' property for the purposes of compiling the expert report mentioned in order 2 above, then the Respondent is to seek the applicants' permission in writing for that inspection to occur on no less than five business days written notice, and the Applicants are directed to permit that inspection.
7. The proceeding is listed for a mediation on a date to be advised by the Registry not before 6 February 2026.
8. There be liberty to apply to Member Brimfield for further directions if required.

[1] See for example Viccars v Leader Earthworks Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATCD or Dinneen v EE Construct & Landscaping Pty Ltd [2023] VCAT 1212.

[2] See the decision of Judge Davey in Maclaw No 651 Pty Ltd v HIH Casualty and General Insurance Limited [1999] VCAT 24; [1999] 15 VAR 302.

[3] See Shao v AG Advanced Construction Pty Ltd [2019] VSCA 93 at [46], and Allianz v Waterbrook [2009] NSWCA 224 at [97].

[4] See Grygiel v Baine and Others [2005] NSWCA 218 at [58].

[5] Other Civil and Administrative Tribunals in other states have a separate jurisdiction to deal with consumer-trader disputes under the relevant state based Australian Consumer Law legislation which would permit the dispute to otherwise be dealt with. This Tribunal does not currently have that jurisdiction.

[6] Section 8B(1)(a), Acts interpretation Act 1931 (Tas).

[7] See Schedule I, section 3(2), definition of "dwelling" which uses the words "in conjunction with," Home Building Act 1989 (New South Wales) and section 5 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic) which uses the words in conjunction with).

[10] See Part 6, Division 1 and Division 3 of the Act.

[8] The Director of Building Control might consider making this clearer in their letters to parties and I will direct a copy of these reasons be provided to them.

[11] The Honourable Elise Archer MP, second reading speech, Residential Building (Miscellaneous Consumer Protection Amendments) Bill 2022.

[9] Section 10(1)(c), Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020.