1. In 1999 the Applicant, Mrs Pilmore ("the Owner") purchased a block of land in Highton, Victoria. By a building contract signed 21 June 2002, the Owner engaged the Respondent ("the Builder") to construct a double storey brick veneer home on the land for a price of $178,625. The Owner selected the home from a brochure produced by the Builder. The Builder provided the engineering design and construction plans. Construction of the home was completed in around June 2003.
2. Between 2006 and 2010 the Owner carried out various further works to the home including the construction of a verandah, a patio, a shed, a small garden bed, concrete paving and installation of a stormwater collection tank.
3. From around 2008, the Owner noticed that an expansion joint in the north face of the brickwork was opening up and the home was beginning to show signs of movement and cracking. Since that time, the movement and cracking has increased and the Owner now claims that rectification of the cracking will require underpinning to the entire waffle pod slab of the home. The Owner claims that the Builder should bear responsibility for the estimated cost to the Owner of engaging a builder to carry out the underpinning works and consequential repairs to movement/cracking and a number of other alleged defects in the building works. The Owners says that the rectification works may take as long as 6 months and the sum of damages claimed, $287,249, includes an allowance of $39,274 for the cost of alternative accommodation and storage for a period of 6 months.
4. The Builder says that the home was stable for many years and that the slab movement and consequential damage now apparent has been caused by the works carried out by the Owner from 2006 onwards. The Builder says also that underpinning the entire waffle slab is neither necessary nor advisable. The Builder says that partial underpinning to one portion of the slab together with improving site drainage will rectify the slab movement. The builder denies liability for all of the claims made by the Owner.

1. The matter came before me on 24 July 2013 and was concluded on 26 July 2013. A view of the home was conducted on the second day of the hearing.
2. Mr S. Smith of Counsel represented the Owner and Mr D. Pumpa of Counsel represented the Builder.
3. The Owner gave evidence herself and called evidence from Mr Metwally, an engineer whom the Owner recently engaged to provide a design plan for underpinning the slab. Mr Millsom, Managing Director of the Builder, gave evidence for the Builder.
4. Concurrent expert evidence was given by Mr John Atchison (called by the Owner) and Mr John Southwell (called by the Builder). Each of the experts also produced written reports.
5. For the reasons set out below, I find that:
   • - The Builder is responsible for some, but not all of the alleged defects in the building works.
   • - The Owner bears some contributory responsibility for the slab "heave" movement.
   • - Underpinning of the entire slab is unnecessary. Rectification of the slab movement requires only partial underpinning to the subsided southwest end and improving site drainage along the north side of the home.
   • - The Owner is entitled to damages assessed as the estimated reasonable cost to engage an alternative builder to attend to rectification of defective works for which I find the builder bears responsibility, after making an allowance for the owner's contributory responsibility for the slab "heave". The Owner is also entitled to the cost of alternative accommodation for a period of 3 weeks while the rectification works are carried out.

1. The home faces east and sits on a waffle pod slab which includes a stepped down section for the garage at the north east corner. The Builder's works included the construction of the driveway between the garage and the street ("the Builder's driveway), the concrete paving to the front verandah and the front concrete path leading to the front verandah.
2. Works carried out by the Owner include the following:

1. In 2006 the Owner constructed a rear shed on the northern boundary. She also installed a second concrete driveway to access the shed. This additional driveway ("the Owner's driveway") runs along the northern boundary from the front of the property, adjacent to the Builder's driveway, past the garage to the shed. The Owner's driveway sits proud of the ground by around 1500 mm in some areas creating a shallow pit of several square metres between the edge of the Owner's driveway and the northern wall of the garage ("the north shallow pit"). The Owner also installed concrete paving adjacent to the home along its northern and western sides. At the point where the rear garage wall meets the northern home wall, the Owner left a small area unpaved for a garden bed. 2. In 2007 the Owner constructed a patio to the eastern side of the home. Balustrading was installed in this area in 2008;

1. In 2009 the Owner installed a 26,000 litre water tank at the rear of the shed. Stormwater is collected from the north western section of the home's roof and directed, via a spreader, to the garage roof from where it is collected to the tank. The tank's overflow is directed into the stormwater drainage which expels to the front of the property. The water tank sits in an excavated well, approximately half a metre below ground level. Any excess water collecting in the well is pumped into the stormwater discharge.

1. In 2010, the Owner installed a small garden, consisting of several plants and tan bark in the small area left unpaved adjacent to the northern wall at the rear of the garage ("the small garden"). A shadecloth roof was installed over the garden. The Owner says that she waters the small garden in summer months using a soaker hose connected to the water tank.

1. Section 8 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 ("the Act") sets out mandatory warranties that apply to building work carried out under a domestic building contract ("the warranties"). The warranties include the following:

(a) the builder warrants that the work will be carried out in a proper and workmanlike manner and in accordance with the plans and specifications set out in the contract;

(d) the builder warrants that the work will be carried out with reasonable care and skill and will be completed by the date (or within the period) specified by the contract;

1. The building works carried out by the Builder attract the operation of the warranties.

1. The land slopes generally downhill from the north west to the south east. There is no dispute that the slab floor levels now vary by up to 120mm with the high point being at the north west near the garage and the low point being at the rear southwest end. Mr Atchison and Mr Southwell agree that the slab has "heaved" upwards in the north west area and subsided at the rear south/west. The heave is attributed to moisture swelling of the underlying clay. Mr Southwell says the subsidence at the southwest is attributable to the drying effect on underlying clay caused by tree roots from trees, Gums, She-Oaks and Wattles, situated on Council land behind the rear fence of the property. The trees are approximately 15 metres from the slab. Mr Atchison agrees that tree roots have likely played a part in the subsidence of the slab.
2. The interior of the home shows modest signs of movement damage. There are isolated areas of plaster cracking of up to around 2mm on the ground floor. There appears also to be a small hollow section under the slab at the western end. A few minor cracks were observed in the slab under the carpet on the northern side of the home. It is difficult, says Mr Atchison, to know whether these cracks are the result of movement or normal concrete shrinkage. Along the northern side of the home a couple of architraves have separated at the joins. The stairs to the upper level have moved approximately 2mm away from the plasterboard. Several doors on the upper level, one in particular on the northern side, are distorted and sticking. There is some minor plaster cracking and movement in architraves and skirtings on the upper level.
3. The most notable movement to the exterior of the home is the opening of a vertical control joint in the brickwork close to the small garden. On the upper level, the control joint is opened approximately 30mm more than on the lower level. This area coincides with the particularly distorted interior door on the upper level. There is some minor "step" cracking in the brickwork to the northern face.
4. Mr Atchison says that inadequate drainage and poorly backfilled service trenches along the northern side of the home is the most likely cause of the slab heave. He says that an agricultural drain installed by the builder roughly along the northern side of the home sits in clay backfill and has no fabric filter sock. He says also that a portion of the drain is, in view of its depth, located too close to the home to be effective. He says the drain does not adequately stem the flow of water to the clay soil under the slab. He opines that the relative stability of the slab for a number of years coincides with drought years when the inadequacy of the drainage was not exposed and that the more recent slab heave is consistent with the increased rainfall following the end of the drought around 2-3 years ago.
5. Mr Atchison says also that the stormwater drain adjacent to the northern boundary of the slab was found to be located in soft fill material in the area near the small garden where the control joint is opening.
6. Mr Southwell says that the likely source of the heave is the excessive water collected in the north shallow pit and the small garden, both created by the Owner's own works. He says that the slab heave, having occurred in the last few years, is consistent with the creation of the north shallow pit and the small garden.
7. During the course of the hearing, much was made of the small garden area. The Owner produced photographs taken at the time of the slab pour which show a hole in the soil beneath the slab where the northern home wall meets the intersecting garage wall and where the small garden is now located. I accept Mr Southwell's evidence that the hole shown in the photographs is consistent with the Builder allowing for extra concrete at the point where the steel reinforcement in the stepped down level of the slab at the garage is placed below the reinforcement in the higher level of the slab in the home. Mr Atchison concedes the point but says that the hole was filled with loose fill and that this has exacerbated the moisture ingress to the underlying clay.
8. Having inspected the home, including an exposed section of the agricultural drain and the exposed soil in the area of the small garden, and having heard evidence from Mr Southwell and Mr Atchison, I find there is merit in what each of them say. I accept Mr Atchison's evidence that the drainage installed by the Builder is less than adequate and, as such, I find that the Builder has not met the standard of work required by the warranties. I accept also that the north shallow pit and the garden bed, both created by the Owner, have exacerbated the problem. I note that Mr Atchison concedes that the northern void and the garden bed may have contributed to the problem.
9. On all the evidence, I think it fair to attribute 50% of the responsibility for the "heave" in the slab to the Builder and 50% to the Owner.
10. As to the subsidence of the slab at the south west end, I attribute full responsibility to the Builder. Accepting, as I do, that the subsidence has been caused by the drying effect of tree roots, the determination of responsibility rests, in my view, on a finding as to whether the "culprit" trees existed prior to the date of the contract and the commencement of construction works.
11. The Owner gave evidence that the trees had been planted before she entered into the contract with the Builder. She also produced photographs taken before any construction works had commenced which show the trees planted as saplings.
12. The Builder relies on a site survey assessment obtained by the Builder in February 2002, some 4 months prior to the building contract being signed. The survey assessment indicates that there are no trees on the site or any neighbouring blocks. It is possible that the trees were planted after the site survey and before the parties entered the building contract.
13. I accept the Owner's evidence that the trees were planted prior to the date of the building contract. I found the Owner to be a credible witness who gave straightforward answers to questions put to her. While I do not question Mr Millsom's credibility, his evidence is founded on the survey assessment report obtained in February 2002, not his own observations.
14. Accordingly I find that the trees were planted prior to the parties entering into the contract and that, in preparing the design for construction of the home, the Builder ought to have made allowance for the trees. That no such allowance was made has resulted in the subsidence of the southwest end of the slab and I find that the Builder is now responsible for the cost of rectification works to remedy the slab subsidence.

1. Mr Atchison first inspected the home on 2 August 2012 following which he produced his first report dated 5 December 2012. In his first report Mr Atchison recommended improvements to the drainage on the northern side of the building, which will necessitate the removal and reinstatement of concrete paving, and the resealing of opening articulation joints. He also recommended that cosmetic internal repairs be carried out following a period of monitoring after site stabilisation has been confirmed. Mr Atchison estimated the cost of such rectification works (after allowing for a clerical error in his costings conceded during the course of his evidence) at around $8,450, not including builder's margin and GST. He allows for an additional builder's margin for profit and overheads of 30%.
2. Mr Atchison inspected the property again on 4 April 2013, at which time this proceeding was well under way, and produced a second report dated 14 May 2013. In his second report Mr Atchison recommends, in addition to the abovementioned drainage improvement works, the complete underpinning of the slab with the result that his costing for rectification to the slab movement increased to around $221,000. As the damage to the home had not increased significantly between his first and second inspections, I questioned Mr Atchison as to why he included the extensive underpinning works as part of his recommended rectification works in his second report. Mr Atchison says that at the time of his second inspection, the prospect of underpinning the slab at its subsided southwest end was first raised by Mr Southwell. Following this inspection the owners sought and obtained an underpinning design from Mr Metwally. Mr Metwally's design provided for extensive underpinning to the whole slab. The owners then obtained a quotation from "Construk Underpinning" to carry out the underpinning works in accordance with Mr Metwally's design. Mr Atchison adjusted his cost estimates to include the underpinning works as quoted by Construk Underpinning.
3. Mr Atchison now says that if the slab is to be underpinned at all, it should be wholly underpinned. He says that underpinning only the southwest portion may create problems for the remainder of the slab after the drainage works are carried out and the heaved section has settled.
4. Mr Southwell first raised the prospect of underpinning just the subsided southwest portion of the slab. He says that underpinning is a last resort measure. He refers to sB3 in Australian Standard AS2870-2011 which deals with footing movement and cracking and states in part:

"In many cases the treatment should consist of stabilising moisture conditions by physical barriers or paths, or replenishing moisture in dry foundations. This may be followed by repair of the masonry and, wherever possible, added articulation should be included while repairs are being effected. Structural repairs to the footing system, such as deep underpinning, should only be considered as the last resort ... Underpinning should generally be avoided where the problem is related to reactive clays, although it is recognised there may be occasional situations where underpinning or other structural augmentation work is appropriate".

1. Mr Southwell says that as it cannot be confirmed that the trees can be removed (the trees are on Council land) and as he is not satisfied, on past experience, that the installation of a tree root barrier would be effective, he considers that underpinning of the subsided portion of the slab is the appropriate "last resort" measure for that portion of the slab. Mr Southwell agrees that improvements to the drainage on the north side of the home is required to deal with the "heave" of the slab in that area.
2. Mr Southwell rejects the notion that if any underpinning is to be carried out then the whole of the slab should be underpinned. He says he would rarely, if ever, recommend underpinning a heaved section of slab as it may well lead to greater volatility rather than slab stability. Mr Southwell gave evidence that he has first hand experience in designing successful solutions to slab movement issues which involved underpinning only a subsided portion of waffle pod slabs.
3. Mr Metwally, who provided the wholesale underpinning design to the owners in May 2013, says he inspected the home and noted that there appeared to be subsidence towards the rear western end of the slab. He says he reached the view that a complete underpinning was "appropriate". Mr Metwally provided no expert report during the course of the proceeding. He was called to give evidence because he provided the underpinning design plan at the request of the Owner. As he was not called upon to provide an expert report for the purpose of the litigation and as his evidence is effectively limited to providing what he considers to be an "appropriate" underpinning design, I find Mr Metwally's evidence to be generally unhelpful.
4. I prefer the evidence of Mr Southwell on this issue. His report and evidence were thorough and considered. While I also found Mr Atchison to be a thoroughly credible witness, I prefer Mr Southwell's opinion on this particular issue as he has direct and relevant experience to call upon and, as a practising geotechnical engineer, I consider he is better qualified than Mr Atchison to comment on the issue. Accordingly, I find that underpinning only the south west subsided portion of the slab is called for.
5. Mr Southwell agrees with Mr Atchison that the drainage to the north side of the home needs improving. Both agree that the small garden should be removed and replaced with concrete and further drainage is required to deal with the north shallow pit. I am satisfied that the drainage improvement works recommended by Mr Atchison are appropriate.
6. For the above reasons, I find that the required rectification works in relation to the slab movement include:
   • - The drainage improvement works and consequential repairs as recommended by Mr Atchison. I accept Mr Atchison's costing of $8,540, not including margin and GST, as reasonable. As I have found that the Owner is 50% responsible for the "heave" of the slab, and these works are directed almost wholly at rectifying the heave, I find that the builder should bear only 50% of the cost.
   • - the underpinning to the southwest portion of the slab as recommended by Mr Southwell.
7. Mr Southwell has produced a plan for the underpinning works and costs such works as follows:
   • - 6 x underpins at $2,800 per underpin $16,800
   • - $6,000 for installation of internal mass concrete pad $6,000
   • - Demolish and replace rear paving $6,000
   • - Part demolish and reinstate rear patio $3,000

1. Mr Southwell's cost estimate is an approximate general estimate that makes no provision for a builder's margin that would apply if an alternative builder is engaged to carry out the works. It is unclear as to whether his estimate allows for GST. Mr Atchison accepts that Mr Southwell's cost estimate is reasonable, subject to making additional provision for builder's margin and GST. I accept that Mr Southwell's cost estimate is reasonable save that, for the reasons addressed below, a builder's margin should also be allowed. I will also allow an additional sum for GST as I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that Mr Southwell's estimate makes provision for GST. I am satisfied, on Mr Southwell's evidence, that his cost estimate includes an allowance for the protection of household goods and clean up after the works are done.
2. The Builder has not pleaded or submitted that it should be given the opportunity to attend to any required rectification works. It simply denies liability for any rectification works. For this reason, I am not satisfied that the cost of the rectification works should be assessed as the cost the Builder would incur if it attended to the rectification works. I find it is appropriate to cost all required rectification works on the basis that the Owner will engage an alternative builder to carry out all the rectification works and that there should be an allowance for a builder's margin for profit and overheads. Mr Atchison allows a builder's margin of 30%. Noting that the Builder gave no evidence and made no submission as to an appropriate margin, I am satisfied that Mr Atchison's allowance is reasonable.
3. For the above reasons I find that the builder is responsible for 50% of the rectification cost associated with the "heave" of the slab, $4,270, and the cost of underpinning the subsided southwest end of the slab, $31,800. I will apply builder's margin and GST after assessing all further claims made by the Owner.

1. It is not disputed that the concrete paving to the front porch has fallen away from the building leaving a very noticeable gap of approximately 30ml between the edge of the paving and the building. It is also not disputed that two of the posts to the porch are out of plumb by up to around 7mm. The Builder is unsure as to why the posts are out of plumb and the concrete paving has fallen away from the home, but says that the condition of the porch raises no structural concern. The Builder suggests filling the gap between the path and the wall with a suitable flexible sealant.
2. Mr Atchison considers that the paving has fallen away from the wall because of poor ground preparation prior to laying the concrete. He says that although there would appear to be no major structural concern at this point in time, if the paving continues to move and the porch posts become more out of plumb, the structural integrity of the porch may well be compromised. He recommends that the paving be demolished and reinstated and that the porch posts be made plumb. I accept Mr Atchison's opinion.
3. A small section of the concrete path leading to the front porch has a noticeable crack. I accept Mr Atchison's evidence that the cause of the cracking is, again, most likely the poor ground preparation by the builder prior to laying the path. Mr Atchison recommends that the affected section of the path be removed and reinstated
4. There is no evidence of substance to suggest that the Owner's actions have caused or contributed to the unsatisfactory works. In my view, the shifting porch paving, the out of plumb posts and the cracked section of the front path constitute works which do not meet the warranties. I find that the builder is responsible for the reasonable cost to carry out the rectification works as recommended by Mr Atchison.
5. Mr Atchison estimates the cost of rectification works as $4,353, not including builder's margin and GST. Noting that the Builder gave no evidence and made no submissions as to the reasonableness or otherwise of Mr Atchison's cost estimate for these works, I accept Mr Atchison's cost estimate is reasonable and I allow that sum.

1. The driveway constructed by the builder has a number of cracks. The Owner says that the cracks have steadily worsened over a number of years. At the time the owner was installing the owners' driveway, a portion of the builder's driveway broke away. The driveway appears to have subsided as it is noticeably lower than the level of the garage slab and the adjacent owner's driveway.
2. In the course of investigating the cause of the cracking to the driveway, the owner arranged for two core samples of the driveway to be taken at a point close to the worst area of cracking. The core samples were inspected at the view. Only one of the core samples appears to contain steel reinforcement.
3. Removal of the core samples also provided an opportunity to view the ground underneath the driveway. Quite surprisingly, there is a void of around 1500mm between the underside of the driveway and the ground beneath it, at least at the point where the core samples were taken.
4. Having regard to the void underneath the driveway and the lack of reinforcement in at least a portion of the concrete drive, it is perhaps no surprise that the driveway has cracked and, in one instance, broken away.
5. Although the builder suggests that the void underneath the driveway may in some way be related to the heave of the waffle slab, I prefer Mr Atchison's evidence that the ground underneath the driveway was ill prepared and that this is the direct cause of the failure of the driveway.
6. I find that the driveway works do not meet the warranties and the builder is responsible for the cost of rectification works. I accept Mr Atchison's recommendation that the driveway should be demolished and reinstated. Mr Atchison estimates the costs of such work as $7,058, not including builder's margin and GST. Noting that the Builder gave no evidence and made no submissions as to the reasonableness or otherwise of Mr Atchison's cost estimate for these works, I accept Mr Atchison's cost estimate is reasonable and I allow that sum.

1. There is a small water stain on the upstairs plaster ceiling. Having investigated the roof space, Mr Atchison located a small gap in the dry bedded roof valley where one or several tiles have been dislodged which he believes is the source of the water ingress. Mr Atchison says that because the roof is in a very exposed area, the roof valley should have either been bedded or fitted with appropriate seals. He recommends that the valleys be "rebedded" with mortar.
2. Mr Atchison also identified water entry into the soffit over the front door which he says has been caused by poorly sealed flashings and tiles that have not been fixed to the battens. To prevent the problem from reoccurring he recommends mechanically fixing the tiles along the verandah roof. Mr Atchison also identified gaps evident around the flashings over the front entry door and he recommends refitting and sealing over the flashings.
3. Mr Atchison estimates the cost of attending to the above recommended rectification works, including rectification of water damaged plaster, as $1,980, not including builder's margin and GST. His estimate includes $720 as the cost to provide safe access to the roof.
4. In respect of the roof valleys, the builder says that the dislodgement of a couple of tiles in the period of almost 10 years since the home was constructed does not amount to a breach of the warranties and ought properly to be considered as a maintenance issue for which the owner is responsible. The builder's submission has merit. There are a number of possibilities as to why one or several roof tiles adjacent to a roof valley may have dislodged over a 10 year period. The tiles may have been dislodged in a violent storm or by inadvertent human activity. The owner gave no evidence as to whether anyone has or has not accessed the roof after the home was constructed, however it seems likely to me that a person may well have accessed the roof to clean the valleys and gutters. In my view, the small water stain to the upstairs ceiling caused by a couple of dislodged roof tiles is not indicative of roof failure or poor workmanship. Rather, it appears to me to be the result of a normal occurrence that would be addressed as part of ordinary home maintenance. For this reason, I find that the builder is not responsible for the rectification to the roof valleys or the repair of the water stain to the upstairs plaster ceiling.
5. The Builder gave no evidence to contest Mr Atchison's findings and recommendations as to the water stained soffit over the front door which Mr Atchison says has been caused by poorly sealed flashings and tiles that have not been fixed to the battens. For this reason, I accept Mr Atchison's findings and recommendations for rectification works. The Builder has provided no alternative costing for such works. In order to reach a reasonable cost estimate, I will deduct from the overall cost estimate Mr Atchison has provided for "water ingress" rectification works the costs which I consider can be fairly apportioned to the rectification works for which I have found the Builder is not responsible, namely rebedding the roof valleys and repair of the water stain to the upstairs plaster ceiling.
6. First, I will deduct the sum of $680 which Mr Atchison allows for the rebedding of the roof valleys. Next, as accessing the roof will still be required to rectify the tiling along the verandah roof, I will deduct 50% of the cost of accessing the roof, a deduction of $360. Finally, I will deduct 30% of the cost to repair damaged plaster areas, a deduction of $90. After making these deductions, I find that the reasonable cost of rectifying defects for which the builder is responsible is $850, not including builder's margin and GST.
7. I note also that Mr Atchison identified a further point of water ingress through a lounge room window frame which has opened up by reason of the slab heave. The cost of rectifying the damage has been included in the cost of rectifying the slab heave and consequential damage.

1. I am satisfied, on the evidence of Mr Atchison, that the underpinning works will require a Building Permit and that the rectification works overall, to be carried out by an alternative builder, will require warranty insurance. I am satisfied that Mr Atchison's allowance for these items, $2,400 not including builder's margin and GST, is reasonable and I allow that sum.

1. The Owner's claim for alternative accommodation and storage costs for a period of 6 months is not sustainable. Mr Atchison allows 10 weeks for rectification works, however his allowance anticipates the complete underpinning of the slab which I have found is unnecessary. He gives no opinion as to the time required to complete the rectification works which I find are required. Mr Southwell says that the underpinning of the southwest portion of the slab will take approximately 4 days.
2. Having regard to the scope of rectification works which I have found are necessary, in particular the underpinning to the southwest portion of the slab and the demolishing and reinstatement of the driveway and the front porch paving, I consider it reasonable to allow a period of 3 weeks alternative accommodation for the Owner while such works are carried out. I am not satisfied that there should be any allowance for storage costs, as the furniture and household effects situated in the southwest portion of the home can be stored elsewhere in the home while the underpinning works are being completed.
3. The owner has produced evidence, an email from "Barwon Valley Lodge" dated 10 May 2013, which indicates the cost of an apartment at $125 per night. Noting that the Builder has produced no alternative evidence, I find that the cost is reasonable and I allow $2,625 as the reasonable cost of alternative accommodation for 3 weeks.
4. I accept also the Owner's uncontested evidence that she will need to find an alternative home for her cat as pets are not allowed in the rental apartments to which she made enquiries. The Owner has provided a quotation from "McIntyre Park Cattery" indicating the cost of accommodation for her cat, based on a long term stay of at least 4 months, as $9 per night. There is no evidence as to the cost of a short term stay. Doing the best I can, I will allow $200 as the cost of alternative accommodation for 3 weeks for the Owner's cat.
5. Accordingly, I allow $2,825 as the reasonable cost of alternative accommodation for the Owner and her cat.

1. As part of her overall damages claim, the Owner claims the following costs incurred by her:
   • - $3,905 being the cost of engaging Mr Atchison to investigate and provide reports;
   • - $550 being the cost of obtaining a site survey from "St Quentin Consulting" on around 30 August 2012;
   • - $605 being the cost of engaging "Alan Johnson Plumbing" to carry out camera investigation of pipes/drains in November 2012;
   • - $1,000 being the cost of the underpinning design provided by Mr Metwally in May 2013;
   • - $200 being the cost of engaging "Taros Griffiths Concrete Cutting" to take the two concrete core samples from the driveway in April 2013.
2. As the Owner confirmed in evidence that these costs were incurred for the purpose of pursuing her claim in this proceeding, I do not consider the costs should form part of her claim for damages against the Builder. Rather, they are costs associated with the litigation and the Owner's entitlement to recover such costs, or a proportion of such costs, depends on whether the Owner seeks and obtains an order that the Builder pay the Owner's costs of the proceeding. As noted below, the issue of costs of the proceeding will be reserved with liberty to apply.

1. In conclusion, I allow damages payable by the Builder to the Owner in a total sum of $75,370 calculated as follows:
   • - slab movement and consequential repairs $31,800
   • - and 4,270 $36,070
   • - front porch and paving 4,353
   • - driveway 7,058
   • - water ingress 850
   • - permit and insurance 2,400
   • - sub total $50,731
   • - add 30% builder's margin 15,219
   • - sub total $65,950
   • - add GST 6,595
   • - sub total $72,545
   • - alternative accommodation 2,825
   • - TOTAL $75,370
2. For the above reasons, I will order the Builder to pay the Owner damages in the sum of $75,370. As the sum represents the cost to be incurred by the Owner to attend to rectification works, and there is no allowance for any costs incurred in the past, I make no allowance for interest. Costs of the proceeding will be reserved with liberty to apply.