• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

The underlying dispute arose from a building contract dated 12 September 2004. McInness Developments Pty Ltd, described as the Builder, claimed that contract sums exceeding $100,000 remained unpaid. June Detering, the homeowner, counterclaimed for alleged defective work and delay. Her expert, Mr Cross, had costed the alleged defects at approximately $280,000. Those figures describe the competing claims, not findings by the Tribunal that any amount was owed or any defect established.

The defects relevant to the joinder application included electric slab heating, a valley gutter and a sliding door. The Builder sought to add three people or entities: Terry Detering, the homeowner's husband; Trevor McMaster, trading as Warmcrete and described as the floor-heating subcontractor; and Pleysier Perkins Pty Ltd, the architects.

The order was divided. The Tribunal joined Mr Detering and Mr McMaster, dismissed the application to join Pleysier, required an amendment to the homeowner's pleading concerning the valley gutter, and directed the Builder to file Points of Claim against the two joined parties. Costs were reserved. The substantive domestic building dispute was not decided by this ruling.

The supplied judgment text does not provide distinct, reliably differentiated paragraph numbers: its reasons appear with repeated paragraph numbering in the provided rendering. This deep dive therefore refers to the judgment's named sections rather than assigning paragraph numbers that cannot be verified from that text.

Why the court decided this way

The Tribunal began with s 60(1) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998. That provision permits joinder where the Tribunal considers that the person ought to be bound by, or have the benefit of, an order; the person's interests are affected; or joinder is desirable for another reason. The Tribunal identified an open and arguable case on the face of the pleadings as an important consideration. It relied on Zervos v Perpetual Nominees Ltd, Radan Constructions Pty Ltd v Palladium Developments Pty Ltd and Age Old Builders v Swintons Pty Ltd for that threshold, including the point that a claim need not be certain to succeed but must not be clearly misconceived or hopeless.

For Mr Detering, the proposed Points of Claim alleged substantial involvement in the project, particularly the floor-heating arrangements. The allegations included that he arranged a change from hydronic heating to electric coils before the Builder tendered; amended and initialled contract plans and specifications to reflect design changes; selected Warmcrete as a nominated subcontractor; and was involved in the engineer's redesign of the ground-floor slab. The pleading further alleged that he knew or ought to have known the Builder lacked specialist electric-floor-heating knowledge, and that the Builder would use the subcontractor he nominated.

The homeowner opposed his joinder. Her solicitor argued that Mr Detering had merely communicated her requirements and referred to Chaudrey v Prabhakar and Ors, concerning advice in family, domestic or social relationships. The Tribunal nevertheless found it arguable that Mr Detering owed a duty to Mrs Detering and had breached it. It also found that the allegations could support an argument that he failed to exercise the level of skill and care identified in the quoted passage from Chaudrey. This was a joinder-stage assessment, not a final finding that a duty existed or had been breached.

The proposed claim against Mr McMaster was more directly connected to the technical work. The Builder alleged he operated as an electric concrete floor-heating specialist under the name Warmcrete and was its nominated subcontractor. Because the Builder's case attributed responsibility for designing, supplying and installing the heating system to him, the Tribunal considered a claim against him open and arguable. It did not decide whether the heating system was defective, who caused any defect, or how responsibility should ultimately be allocated.

The result for Pleysier turned on the two pleaded heads connected to the architects. First, the proposed pleading concerned the valley gutter. The homeowner's solicitor had stated that rectification works had been undertaken and that the homeowner was withdrawing the relevant claim, subject to amendment of her counterclaim. The Tribunal relied on that position and noted there was no indication that the plumber had claimed against the Builder for rectification costs. It concluded there would be no sustainable claim on the face of the proposed Points of Claim once the counterclaim was amended.

Second, the sliding-door allegation was that nails or screws projected into the door cavity and scratched the door. The Builder also alleged that the selected mechanism was unsuitable for its location and made adjustment or rectification more difficult. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the proposed pleading showed an arguable causal connection between damage to the door and the mechanism. With neither of the two relevant claims providing a sustainable basis for joinder, the application to add Pleysier was dismissed.

The Tribunal separately considered timing. It said a joinder application should be made reasonably expeditiously and that one might hope it would be filed within about a month of obtaining an expert report identifying failures potentially attributable to others. That was expressed as a general guide, with an explicit qualification that circumstances could make a shorter or longer period appropriate. The Tribunal considered the chronology, including the counterclaim filed in May 2008, the Builder's expert material, mediation, and the March 2009 application. It considered the application should have been made around the directions hearing of 13 November 2008. Despite the delay and resulting disadvantage to the homeowner, it found no appearance of an attempt to delay for its own sake. Referring to Queensland v JL Holdings Pty Ltd, it treated the aim of justice as relevant and found that delay alone did not justify denying joinder of the two parties against whom arguable cases had been shown.

Before and after state of the law

The judgment does not purport to set out a comprehensive account of the law before or after the decision. Its stated framework is the statutory joinder power in s 60(1) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, applied with the arguability threshold drawn from the authorities it cited. It also discusses the application of Part IVAA of the Wrongs Act 1958 because the Builder sought apportionment of responsibility, or alternatively a reduction, indemnity or contribution.

The Tribunal made a specific distinction about the statutory language: it observed that Part IVAA apportions responsibility rather than liability. It referred to Deputy President Aird's comments in Salta Constructions Pty Ltd v Solid Investments Australia Pty Ltd & Anor as useful guidance for a party seeking apportionment: the pleading should set out why a person is alleged to be a concurrent wrongdoer, how that person allegedly failed to take reasonable care, and how that conduct caused or contributed to the relevant loss. The present ruling did not determine whether any proposed party was in fact a concurrent wrongdoer or how any loss should be apportioned.

The decision's contribution on the material provided is therefore case-specific and procedural. It shows how the Tribunal applied the arguability threshold to the proposed pleadings, and how it weighed delay alongside the apparent merits of joinder and case-management consequences. It does not establish that the allegations against the joined parties were true, nor does it resolve the merits of the homeowner's counterclaim or the Builder's contractual claim.

Key passages with plain-English translation

The Tribunal's formulation that a case need not be “certain to succeed” but must not be “clearly ‘misconceived or hopeless’” explains the limited nature of the joinder inquiry. In plain English, the Builder did not have to prove its claims at the joinder hearing. It did have to put forward a claim with a genuine arguable basis in the pleading.

The Tribunal's conclusion about Mr Detering was that it was “open and arguable” that he owed a duty and breached it. In plain English, the allegations about his role in changing the heating system and arranging the subcontractor were sufficient to justify his participation in the proceeding at that stage. They were not a final finding of fault.

For Mr McMaster, the Tribunal said the Builder's claim was “open and arguable” in circumstances where the Builder alleged he was responsible for the system's design, supply and installation. In plain English, the pleaded connection between his specialist subcontracting role and the disputed heating work was enough for joinder to be considered appropriate.

The finding on the sliding door was different. The Tribunal was “not satisfied” that the proposed pleading set out an arguable causal nexus between the alleged damage and the mechanism. In plain English, describing the door damage and identifying a potentially unsuitable mechanism did not, on the pleading as presented, adequately connect the mechanism to the damage for the purpose of supporting the claim against the architects.

On delay, the Tribunal said it was not so great that it “alone” justified refusing joinder. In plain English, the application was late and had consequences for the timetable, but lateness did not automatically decide the application. The Tribunal considered the reason and appearance of the delay, the likely impact, and the arguability of the proposed claims.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The decision is relevant to a procedural situation where a party to a domestic building dispute seeks to add another person or entity because the pleadings attribute some part of the disputed work or resulting loss to that proposed party. The examples here include an alleged project participant who arranged design changes, a specialist subcontractor alleged to have responsibility for a technical installation, and architects whose alleged responsibility related to particular defects.

The case is especially informative where joinder is sought to support an apportionment case under Part IVAA of the Wrongs Act 1958. The Tribunal's discussion of Salta Constructions emphasises the need for the pleading to identify the basis for alleging that the proposed party is a concurrent wrongdoer, the asserted failure to take reasonable care, and the alleged causal contribution to loss. The decision does not determine what pleading is sufficient in every case; it records the approach taken to the pleading before the Tribunal.

It is also relevant where the proposed claims depend on defects that have been withdrawn or where the alleged causal connection is not adequately pleaded. The valley-gutter claim was being withdrawn, and the Tribunal found the sliding-door pleading did not disclose the necessary arguable link. The different outcomes demonstrate that a general connection to the project was not enough in this application: the claims against each proposed party were assessed on their pleaded basis.

Finally, the judgment may be relevant where a joinder application is made after expert material and procedural steps have accumulated. It does not set a strict one-month deadline. The Tribunal described about a month as a period one might hope for, while expressly allowing that circumstances could make a different period reasonable. It assessed the particular chronology and the consequences of delay.

How later courts have treated it

The supplied judgment contains no information about later judicial or tribunal treatment of McInness Developments Pty Ltd v Detering. It therefore does not support a statement that later courts have followed, distinguished, criticised or otherwise treated this decision in any particular way.

The cases named in this judgment are authorities cited by Senior Member Lothian when deciding the joinder application. They are not evidence of later treatment of this decision. The text provided also contains no later case citations, appeal history or subsequent analysis of the ruling. Any account of later treatment would require sources beyond the judgment supplied here.

Still-open questions

The ruling left the underlying merits unresolved. It did not decide whether the floor heating was defective, whether the Builder or either joined party failed to meet a relevant standard, whether Mr Detering owed or breached a duty, or what loss was caused by any alleged failure. Those questions would remain for the substantive proceeding and any evidence and pleadings considered there.

The Tribunal also did not decide whether the Builder could establish a basis for apportionment under Part IVAA. It stated that responsibility, rather than liability, is apportioned under that Act and described the kind of allegations relevant to a concurrent-wrongdoer claim. It did not make a finding that any proposed party met that description.

The reasoning concerning the valley gutter was tied to the homeowner's stated intention to withdraw the claim and the absence of a then-existing claim by the plumber against the Builder. The Tribunal noted that the Builder's counsel raised the possibility that the plumber might later seek to recover rectification costs, but expressly did not take that possibility into account. The order required the homeowner to amend her pleading to reflect that she was taking no action concerning the valley gutter.

The timing discussion also leaves fact-sensitive questions. The Tribunal suggested that an application might ordinarily be made within about a month after obtaining an expert report identifying possible failures attributable to others, but did not create a fixed limitation period. It acknowledged circumstances could make that period too long or too short. Its conclusion that delay did not independently defeat joinder rested on the chronology and the finding that the application did not appear to be delay for delay's sake.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before you act on this, rely on it, or use any draft, have it checked by a qualified Australian lawyer.