Ms S Kirton of Counsel, who called to give evidence:

1.1 This is an application by the builder, Anthony John Pratley (trading as "Pratley Constructions") ("the builder") to recover sums he claims are due under a major domestic building contract ("the contract") to build a dwelling for the respondent owners, Mr B Racine and Mrs L Racine, ("the owners") at Lot 1, Rosella Court, Healesville.

1.2 In his points of claim the builder claimed that at a meeting onsite on or about 16 December 2002, as confirmed in correspondence between the parties around 16 December 2002, the parties agreed to terminate the contract and that as a result of that termination he was entitled to a payment of $84,981.81. The builder maintained that the owners had unilaterally terminated the contract in breach of the agreement to mutually terminate the contract. A short way into the hearing of this matter the builder withdrew this claim. The builder's remaining ground alleged that the owners had wrongfully sought to terminate the contract as at the time of their purported termination they were in breach of their contract as they had failed to pay the fixing stage payment, thereby, the owners had repudiated the contract.

1.3 The builder claimed that as a result of the owners' repudiation of the contract he was entitled to:

(ii) the cost to complete the scope of works under the contract;

(iii) the reasonable cost to rectify any defects in the works; and,

1.4 The builder submitted that, as a result of the owners' repudiation, the assessment of all such costs would be as a cost to the builder. The builder submitted this principle is recognised at common law and it is also in accordance with Sub Clause 42.3 of the HIA "Plain English Building Contract" ("the general conditions of contract") which is part of the contract documents.

1.5 The owners submitted in their counterclaim that the builder was not entitled to the fixing stage payment as the works required for the fixing stage were not complete. The owners maintain that their termination of the contract on the grounds that the builder failed to proceed with the works, inter alia, competently and diligently, was valid. On that basis, their termination of the contract was legal and they were entitled to recover:

(b) the cost of rectifying any defective works; and,

less any balance of the contract sum owing. They submitted that all costs should be assessed as costs to the owner.

1.6 The owners deny the builder's claim for variations on the basis that such variations do not comply with the notice requirements of Clause 23 of the general conditions of contract, neither do they comply with the notice requirements of Section 37 or 38 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 ("the Act").

2.1 The hearing of this application and the counterclaim was set down for 18 days. The specific allegations of breach of contract or a contractual entitlement by the parties numbered in excess of 400 separate allegations. It was apparent at the start of the hearing that if the normal hearing procedure and approach to a party's claims was adopted that the hearing would take up the whole of the 18 days. By normal hearing I mean that all of the builder's witnesses were heard first and cross-examined followed by the owners' witnesses.

2.2 In an effort to minimize the hearing days and the time needed to sort through the evidence I suggested to the parties that, as a substantial number of allegations of defective and incomplete work involved a difference in costing of less than $350.00, the parties may be happy to have their building experts sit down together and attempt to compromise as many as possible of these items as possible, so as to minimize the hearing time. I chose $350.00 as it appears to me this represented approximately the parties' costs of 10 minutes of hearing time.

2.3 Both the parties through their legal representatives agreed and adopted this approach. The claim and counterclaim were broken down into categories of allegations as to their estimated cost and each parties opinion of the item and a table produced for each category. The different tables and their categories are identified and discussed below. During the hearing and the party's discussions the tables were updated to show the matters that were resolved and to clearly elucidate those matters still in disagreement.

2.4 To further facilitate this process both of the Tribunal and the parties agreed that when evidence of specific expertise was required it was best to swear in the expert from each party at the same time and to hear from each of them in turn as to a specific allegation, then to allow them to question each other together, with Counsel interposing cross-examination with the leave of the Tribunal. I consider that as well as shortening the evidence needed on each specific item, this centralizes all of the necessary evidence on a specific item under a specific expertise at one time in the hearing. I consider this leads to substantial savings in costs and more clarity and understanding of a parties position on a specific allegation.

2.5 There remained areas where the parties had substantial disagreement, for example, as to the termination of the contract or as to rectification cost of the large amount of subfloor and footing works, etc. I heard the evidence and I took time to consider my decision. Where the issue was not substantial e.g. whether an allegation of a specific form of defective work should be upheld, where the issue was the rectification cost of a particular defect; I heard the evidence of both experts together on the specific issue and with the agreement of the parties, I gave my decision as to that particular issue immediately.

2.6 The bulk of the items in dispute between the parties are as to liability, i.e. Table 6. To enable an efficient and effective consideration of the smaller items in Table 6 it was agreed, using an extension of the process above, that each item would be considered at a site inspection of 8 June 2004, attended by the parties, their building experts and myself. At that inspection each of the parties building experts addressed each item specifically in relation to liability and quantum. I made my decision at the site inspection, after discussing it with the parties and immediately upon the cessation of evidence and discussion in relation to a specific item. The parties agreed that for the items set out in Table 6 which were considered at the site meeting and upon which I ruled as to liability and quantum, my decision was final and that there would be no further hearing and adjudication on any of the items raised in this table other than items which the parties and the Tribunal acknowledged required further consideration or evidence from the structural engineers. The structural engineers were also required to brief the building consultants so that those consultants in their turn could assess the likely cost of the structural engineer's proposed rectification works. These considerations are set out in Table 11 and Table 12.

2.7 The same process was used at the site inspection to deal with the items in Table 2; namely, where the parties agreed items were defective but the party's were unable to agree as to the quantum. The largest item in this table was a large number of allegations of defective and incomplete plumbing work. I was addressed by an expert plumber for each party and after a detailed discussion with the plumbers, I made a decision on site regarding the plumbing items.

2.8 The same hearing process was adopted with the engineering evidence. The two structural engineering experts gave evidence at the same time and each allegation of defective or incomplete structural work was dealt with separately. During the engineers' evidence, I allowed the building consultants to give their comments and to provide the costings of the rectification work proposed by the engineers.

2.09 By the time the hearing was completed there were some twelve tables. When considering my findings in this proceeding I will set out the various tables with my comments on individual allegations of breach.

3.1 I now propose to set out a chronology of fact based on the applicant Counsel's prepared chronology which does not appear to be in issue. Where I consider it relevant I have added facts. Following the facts I will address the legal issues as to whether the builder was entitled to fixing stage payment, whether the owners termination of the contract was legal; and, which party if any repudiated the major domestic building contract. And, taking the above into consideration I will then set out my findings on quantum in the tabular form generated in the hearing.

Owners purchased land at 1 Rosella Crescent, Healesville

Owners had plans and a specification drawn up by Dennis Ward, Architect.

Ward recommended Pratley as a potential builder to the owners as they had previously worked together on a number of occasions.

Owners met builder on site - owners say 22.12.00 but builder says early 2001 (nothing of any significance turns this dispute of fact).

Council letter to owners listing requirements and necessary amendments before it would issue a building permit

Builder gives a quote based on plans and specification provided by owners as prepared by B. Ward, Architect:

o engineering drawings and comps prepared by MacLeod 12/00

Discussions between owners and builder to reduce price

HIA Plain English General Conditions of Contract (revised July 2000)

Specifications prepared by Ward and amended by builder by hand after discussions with the owners

Plans prepared by Ward and McLeod. Note: these plans had not been amended to accord with the Council's requirements of 9.2.01.

Council letter to owners listing what 9.2.01 requirements still had to be satisfied before issuing a building permit

Amended drawings, computations and a Form 13 by MacLeod, Structural Engineer.

Builder commenced work (with permission from Council says builder)

Council issued building permit (not sent to owners until 30/8/01)

Reinforcement, footing excavation & pre-slab inspections, approved by building surveyor, Form 14 issued

Builder says Frame Stage approved verbally by Council after provided report of Macleod dated 14.5.02

Builder's registration suspended by BCC due to delay in obtaining ongoing insurance following Dexta withdrawing from market.

Owners disputes Fixing Stage Invoice - letter by B. Ward to builder disputing fixing stage reached and requesting copies of the building surveyors inspection notices

Builder response letter to Ward - Ward's request for inspection notices not referred to.

Builder letter to Ward confirming discussion at site meeting that owners wish to terminate the contract and builder has no objection providing he is paid.

B. Ward issued Notice of Intention to Terminate in name of owners.

Builder responds to the notice of intention to terminate stating that he gave notice of termination of the contract in his letter of 16 December 2002 and this was not rejected by the owners.

Shire of Yarra Ranges Inspection Notice: sub-floor inspection fails to comply with the building regulations

Further inspection notice by Shire of Yarra Ranges, with a further 9 items identifying where the dwelling structure may fail to comply with the building regulations which includes further subfloor and frame items.

3.2 At some time after base stage, Mr Racine provided the builder with an undated handwritten note in summary form of changes, variations and extra costs the parties had discussed. The note had two main headings; first "Additional Costs" and underneath this heading in vertical sequence is "excavation", "retaining walls", "top deck", "other". The next main heading is "Frame" which is split into "down stairs" and "up stairs" with various other items that are not relevant.

3.3 The "Inspection Notices" issued by the Shire of Yarra Valley setting out the building work's alleged failures to comply with the Building Regulations are in the following terms:

(1) Provide brick piers under cantilever bearers;

(2) Provide water proof membrane on brick piers under bearers;

(3) Provide 200mm clearance between ground and under side of bearer;

(4) Justify the structural adequacy of the sub-floor construction carried out not in accordance with engineers design;

1. Justify the structural adequacy of the sub floor construction not in accordance with engineers design.

2. Submit a complete copy of the engineers report dated 14/5/02 Ref 071.

3. Justify the ground floor slab laid with the deletion of internal beams as per design.

4. Justify the isolated brick pier pad, not included in extended strip footing.

5. Justify strip footings at front of house which were not inspected and given an approval.

6. Provide a design for method of retaining sub floor excavation.

7. Expose lintel over bedroom 3 for inspection (Engineer may need to justify structural adequacy).

11. Justify beam EB1 being primis painted not galvanised.

4.1 The builder submits that the owners' termination of the contract was in breach of the contract as fixing stage had been reached, he had submitted a stage claim for the fixing stage payment and it had not been paid by the owners in accordance with the terms of the contract. The owners maintain that they were entitled to withhold the payment for fixing stage, as the builder had not completed the work making up that stage.

4.2 Thus, the issue for resolution here is a factual one, was fixing stage reached? Under Section 40 of the Act and Schedule 3 of the general conditions of contract "Fixing stage" is defined as "the stage when all internal cladding, architraves, skirting, doors, built-in shelves, baths, basins, troughs, sinks, cabinets and cupboards of a home are fitted and fixed in position."

4.3 In relation to the assessment of whether fixing stage had been reached, both Counsel in their final submissions referred to para 4-024 from Hudson's Building and Engineering Contracts 11th edition 1995, which is as follows:-

"In the case of stage payments, on the other hand, there will be no room for any theory of substantial performance, it is submitted, save in regard to purely trivial failures, although sometimes it may not be an easy question of fact, when dealing with stipulated stages of construction of an uncompleted project, to determine when sufficient completion of a stage of the work on which an instalment depends has been achieved. Since the purpose of such provisions is to secure an interim payment on account, with a possibly substantial retention, extreme exactitude is no doubt not envisaged, but effective and satisfactory completion of the required stage will be a condition of any instalment payment, it is submitted, and there could be no question of substantial performance arguments entitling a contractor to sue for the instalment while giving credit for incomplete or defective work such as might be possible with the price of final balance due for work on completion."

4.4. In the performance of this contract there is no retention sum therefore the observation that "extreme exactitude" is not required in assessing whether a stage has been reached loses some of its force. Further, by Section 40 of the Act, it is an offence for a builder to demand a stage payment before the stage on which it is based has been reached. This leads me to conclude that some exactitude is required; although, I do not consider it would extend to a trivial shortfall in completion. To strike a balance between the rights of the builder and the owners, I consider the degree of completion that would entitle a builder to a stage payment are that all of the elements of that stage are completed to a degree that, if the contract was on a periodic valuation basis, the builder would be entitled to claim payment for each element.

4.5 In the performance of this contract I consider that there were significant fixing items to which the builder would not be entitled to a progress payment under a contract with payment by periodic valuation; I cite the following items from the joint experts' report:

4.6 I consider that the scope of works included ceilings in the storeroom and workshop both of which are enclosed in the main body of the residence. The builder submitted that the storeroom and workshop ceilings were not part of the fixing stage as that referred to "all internal cladding" and both of these rooms had external access only i.e. they were not accessible from the main body of the residence. I do not consider that this is correct. In my view all "internal cladding" refers to plasterboard, ceilings, etc. as opposed to external wall cladding i.e. weatherboards, bricks, etc referred to in lock up stage. Similarly, as the structure of the residence has direct access and has a common wall with the garage I would also find that if a garage ceiling was required or any specific wall cladding, this too would be "internal cladding" and part of the fixing stage. Thus, the ceilings in the storeroom and workshop are elements of fixing stages that are not complete and for which the builder would not be entitled to payment.

4.7 Therefore, I consider that there were a number of non-trivial and significant items that remain to be completed before fixing stage is reached. Therefore, I uphold the owners' claim that fixing stage had not been reached at the time the builder forwarded the claim to them for fixing stage. These views have been reinforced by my inspection of the works in the degree to which the items cited were short of completion.

4.8 Even if I considered that fixing stage had been reached, I do not consider that the builder was entitled to claim fixing stage as I consider he had not satisfactorily completed the frame stage. The builder gave evidence that he requested an inspection of the frame and that he received verbal approval to the frame after providing the building surveyor from the Shire of Yarra Valley with a report from MacLeod Consulting of 14 May 2002. I note that there was no written approval of the frame; and, as will be described below, the frame is still not approved; in these circumstances the builder was in breach of the contract in forwarding the claim for the frame stage in the sum of $36,450.00 on the 17 February 2002.

4.9 The definition of frame stage at Schedule 3 of the General Conditions of Contract and subsection 40(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act is "the stage when a home's frame is completed and approved by a building surveyor".

4.10 The Shire of Yarra Ranges comments in its inspection reports, as set out below, are taken from the facsimile transmission from Brian Cleeves of the Council to the builder; the notes on the Council's inspection card are unintelligible. The comments in the area of the inspection card marked "Frame" are: (I take N/A to mean 'Not Approved' and the given dates are the dates of inspections).

8.5.02_: N/A -_ Require truss details, amended plans and eng. details, retaining wall details as per permit conditions. Call frame inspection on lodgement of above. Provide guard rails - dangerous high site

13.5.02: N/A - carry out previous instructions plus Engineer's Report required. Double studs under girder truss. Amended plans for side boundary set back.

3.9.02_: N/A - Double lintel required to font wall, lower level. Complete beam connection. Backfill concrete to brick pier. Engineer's report as above._

4.11 Further, as can be seen from the items in the building notices set out at sub-para 3.3 above, serious questions were raised about the structural adequacy of the dwelling. The Shire of Yarra Ranges building surveyor, Mr R Sheffield, who issued the building notices, was not called to give evidence for the builder, who claimed in evidence that Mr Sheffield had verbally approved the frame to him around the middle of May, 2003 and thus, the builder claimed, frame stage had been reached. In the light of the seriousness of the items raised by the building inspector in the notices, I consider that the unexplained failure by the builder to call the building surveyor leads to an inference that the uncalled evidence would not have assisted the builder's case: Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298. Therefore, I do not accept that the building inspector verbally approved the frame as stated by the builder. Further, the inspection notes and notices do not indicate that the building surveyor approved the frame at any stage. This means that the builder was in breach of the contract in claiming the frame stage and as the frame stage has never been approved has remained in breach every since that claim was made.

4.12 I do not consider the builder was entitled to claim fixing stage as the frame stage was not approved and needed to be brought into compliance by being approved by the building inspector before any further stage could be claimed.

5.1 The owners sent a number of notices informing the builder of their intention to terminate the contract. The basis of those notices was that the builder had failed to proceed competently and diligently. "Proceeding diligently" means that the builder proceeded with "reasonable application and expedition": Matthews v Brodie (unreported, McGarvie J, 2 April 1980, page 6). The first show cause notice was sent 18 December 2002 and the second on 20 June 2003; a Notice of Termination under the contract was sent by the owners on 4 July 2003.

5.2 The contract period under the contract was 180 calendar days: Contract Schedule Item 1. Allowing that the builder commenced work when the building permit was issued, the contract period expired on 7 February 2002 i.e. the Date for Completion. Therefore, at the time of either notice of intention to terminate, ("show cause notice") the builder was well outside the time for the completion of the contract.

5.3 The builder submitted that the time for completion of the contract works should be extended to allow for a variety of delays, including six months for the supply of windows. The builder, however, has not submitted any notices requesting an extension of time, as required by Clause 34 of the general conditions of contract. Clause 34 requires the builder to deliver to the owners a notice in writing claiming an extension of time within 7 days after becoming aware that the building works would be delayed, explaining the cause of the delay and the extra time that is needed to satisfactorily complete the works. There is authority to the effect that the providing of the notice within the 7 days is a mandatory requirement if the builder wishes to ground a claim for an extension of time: Opat Decorating Service (Aust) Pty Ltd v Hansen Yuncken (SA) Pty Ltd (1994) 11 BCL 360; in other words, there is a time bar to granting an extension of time if the condition precedent of the notice under Clause 34 is not met. Therefore, the builder is not entitled to any delay period by which the date for completion under the contract is extended.

5.4 I am satisfied that the builder is well out of the time for completion by the time that the owners sent their first show cause notice on 18 December 2002, a period after the Date for Completion that is approximately twice the contract period. Therefore, I consider that the builder had not proceeded with reasonable application and therefore the first ground is made out.

5.5 The ground in Clause 43.0 of the general condition of contract, dealing with the builder's failure to proceed adequately, is stated in the following terms:-

"fails to proceed with this building works competently and diligently"

Thus, it may be argued that an owner must substantiate both a builder's dilatoriness and his lack of competency before relying on this ground. In my view the builder failed to proceed competently. The Council have issued inspection notices raising allegations of serious structural inadequacy in the sub base and the frame. These problems were subsequently identified and discussed in the reports of the structural engineers and the building consultants; many serious deficiencies in these works were conceded by the builder's experts. If significant rectification works are not undertaken, I consider this dwelling would have a significant probability of serious structural movement or partial collapse within its design life. The movement in the roof due to the sinking column at the dwelling is readily apparent. Thus, both grounds are made out. It is unnecessary for me to consider whether "and" means "or" in this context of this ground in Clause 43.0.

5.6 Therefore, I consider owners had good grounds under Clause 34.0 of the general conditions of contract to issue their show cause notices.

6.1 This question arises because I consider there were two possible times the contract could come to an end; the first was after the first of the respondent owner's show cause notice and the second time was after the notice of termination of 4 July 2003.

6.2 The amount and degree of defective work that is attributable to the builder; for instance, the lack of structural soundness in the footings and base stage leading to a significant amount of underpinning and strengthening of footings and bearers being required, the over spanning of floor joists, the inappropriate cantilever of various bearers and joists, the degree of out of level in the floor, and the failure to properly position significant structural beams and the roof trusses, together with a host of minor deficiencies, leads me to the conclusion that the builder in this construction of this dwelling was not intending to construct the dwelling in accordance with the applicable building regulations and Australian Standards. Therefore, I find that the builder, by exhibiting an intention to only construct the works in the manner in which he was satisfied and not in accordance with the building regulations and Australian Standards, was repudiating the contract. As observed by McGarvie J in Matthews (supra) at p.15:-

"At common law a party repudiates a contract not only if he acts so as to indicate an unwillingness to perform his obligations but also if he acts so as to indicate an inability to perform his obligations".

6.3 The owners sent a show cause notice on 18 December 2002 and the builder replied by letter of 22 December 2002 (mistakenly dated 16 December 2002) stating that:

"It should also be noted that I gave notice of the termination of contract on my correspondence on 16th and this has not been rejected."

In his letter of the 16th; meaning his letter of 16 December 2002, the builder started the letter with:

"As per our meeting today, it is my understanding that the Racines' wish to determine the contract and complete the project themselves. I have no objection to this provided I receive the monies owed. The following is a list of how I see the financial side if (sic) the equation:".

The result of this correspondence is that I consider that the contract ended with the owners' show cause notice of 16 December 2002, which the builder accepted in his letter of 22 December 2002 subject to the parties rights under the contract and at common law.

6.4 If my analysis above is considered incorrect, I consider the owners' show cause notice of 18 December 2002 was their acceptance of the builder's common law repudiation of their contract. It is immaterial if the owners gave an incorrect reason in their show cause notice; if an act of repudiation has occurred in fact, it is immaterial whether the owners were aware of the valid reason at the time of acceptance of the repudiation: Nund v McWaters [1982] VicRp 60; [1982] VR 575 at 585, quoting Shepherd v Felt and Textiles of Australia Limited [1931] HCA 21; (1931) 45 CLR 359 at page 378 per Dixon J. If the builder's performance of the contract is such to exhibit a repudiation of the contract: Matthews (supra) a termination by the owners is not invalid because it does not comply with the terms of the contract provided it is valid at common law. Here the builder had prior to the owners show cause notice, repudiated the contract by his lack of diligence and failure to build competently, thus the owners' show cause notice was in effect an acceptance of that repudiation: Cox v Franz (1987) 6 ACLR 35, Laurinda Pty Ltd v Capalaba Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd [1989] HCA 23; (1989) 166 CLR 623.

7.1 As stated above the parties co-operated to produce a number of tables which categorized each party's position in relation to individual allegations or items. I reproduce the tables below, together with my comments where required. The item numbers came from the numbering in the "Joint Inspection Report of Parties Experts of 5 May 2004" prepared jointly by the building consultants; Mr P Sullivan for the builder and Mr D Cheong for the owners. The joint report had two main schedules, Schedule 1 - Completion Items, these items all commence with the prefix 1 and Schedule 2 - Rectification Items, these start with the prefix 2. Schedule 3 was Engineering Rectification Items to which some items from Schedules 1 and 2 were later transferred; the engineering items are best explained by Tables 11 and 12. Lastly, Schedule 4 was the owners' allegations of areas of work not done in accordance with the plans and specifications, this also is best explained by Table 4. In the tables and the contract reconciliation at the end of the reasons monetary amounts in parenthesis are credits to the builder.

7.2 Table 1: Items agreed as defective & part of contract works where the difference in rectification costs is less than $350.00.

1.3.8 Roll a door with remote (NB specified item is 2400 x 5500 colorbond panel door. Sullivan's supplier 'Airport Doors' quote was $2660 plus $100 travel cost)

1.18.5 Fit double sliders and kookaburra glass (see item 1.16.4)

2.3.6 Remove any "foundation framing" timber from sub-slab area

The parties agreed at the site inspection of 8 June 2004 to split the difference between the expert's estimates. Therefore, the costs of rectification of the defective items in Table 1 is $6,409.00.

7.3 Table 2: Items agreed to be defective, part of contract works and the quantum agreed between the parties or assessed onsite 8 June 2004

1.2.4 Garage roof plumbing soaker capping and flashing

1.15.1, 1.17.4, 1.19.2, 1.20.2, 1.21.2 Floor sanding

1.6.2, 1.8.5, 1.10.3, 1.22.10, 1.24.4, 2.5.5, 2.6.3, 2.8.7, 2.9.1, 2.12.4, 2.15.4 (includes paving)

7.4 Table 3: Items agreed as defective, cost difference less than $350, but issue of whether the item is within the scope of the contract works

2.3.4 Raise access opening lintels 8 courses (builder's claims errors on plans, Contract clause 16.1 - onus on builder to notify Owners of discrepancies. Good building practice to check set out before commencing work. MC071 - SO states G1 - all discrepancies shall be referred to the Architect for decision before proceeding with the work, G2 - all dimensions relevant to setting out and off site shall be verified by the Contractor before construction and fabrication is commenced.

1.9.4 & 1.11.4 Magpie Vents (Building Code requirement)

1.14.1 Manhole fit off and fix attic stair by client (in wrong position A6A, unfinished)

These items were discussed between the parties and their building consultants at the site inspection of 8 June 2004 and I allowed all items except the first item 2.2.2 "Repair damaged fascia and capping end north west"; therefore, deduct $210.00 from the table total giving a total rectification cost for Table 3 of $1,266.00.

7.5 Table 4: Schedule 4: Works not in accordance with plans and specifications.

The original table known as Table 4 has been deleted and the items dealt with elsewhere in the tables. Schedule 4 of the joint report, whilst discussed and addressed, was not put in a table; therefore, I have addressed the items in Schedule 4 as Table 4. The builder's expert, Mr Sullivan, agreed that the matters raised in Schedule 4 had not been built in accordance with the plans and specification; however, Mr Sullivan submitted that the items raised were in fact variations but that the builder had not claimed any costs or time for these variations as none arose. My comments on these alleged failures is set out in Table 4.

Weatherboards to front elevation in lieu of brickwork.

Due to the change of the roof support system to trusses it was not possible to install the vaulted cathedral ceiling originally anticipated in the lounge/living area. This required an amendment to the ceiling that reduced the area of cathedral ceiling to fit in with the trusses and this resulted in a significant reduction in the size of the picture window adjacent to this area of ceiling. This also meant that brickwork could not be installed between the eave lining and the top edge of the window as it could not be supported, weatherboards had to be used. The owners agreed to the reduced area of cathedral ceiling. Therefore, I consider that this change from the plans and specifications arose as a direct result of changing the living area ceiling design to trusses and the reduced picture window area was accepted by the owners.

The soffit (what I would call the eave lining) was designed to follow the rake of the rafters, however the soffit was installed horizontally from the bottom end of the rafters back to the external wall of the dwelling and this meant that there was approximately 600mm high of brickwork that was deleted from the horizontal meeting point between the edge of the eave and the external wall and the soffit position at the external wall if it had followed the rafters. The owners allege that the builder saved approximately 1.5 m of external brickwork. The builder answered this allegation in that the basic ceiling design changed from having a large cathedral section in the living area which used rafters and beams of sufficient size to carry the roof loads in that manner to the use of trusses, which means that with their horizontal bottom chords it is not possible to install a soffit following the rafters. The owners were aware that the roof had been changed to a truss design and this horizontal area of soffit is a direct and obvious result of changing to trusses with their horizontal bottom chords. Therefore, there was a variation and the claim is not made out.

Garage access door at top of stairs, loss of amenity negligible, but carrying items from the car is more difficult.

This completes the consideration of Schedule 4 of the joint report - Table 4: Nil Allowance

7.6 Table 5: Matters now agreed between the parties building consultants and accepted by the parties on 31 May 2004.

1.1.1 - Skylights x3 includes (1.12.3 Trim, fit off sky light, 1.14.2 Skylight fit off, and 1.16.1 Skylight fit off).

1.4.1, 2.2.1, 2.4.9, 2.5.4, 2.7.4, and 2.27.1 Brickwork

1.4.12 Complete brickwork top of gable window (agreed at inspection on 1 & 8 June 2004)

1.12.2 Fix head & glaze entry frame (agreed on site on 8 June 2004)

1.16.3 Fit glazing to D13 to match pool room D14 doors

1.24.3 Electrical fit off to plans choice items light fittings supplied by owners

2.1.3 Provide flashing on western face above kitchen

2.1.16 Alter sag & distortion to eaves & roof to northwest, above kitchen window

2.3.5 Install aggi drains to footings wall in sub slab area and connect out fall

2.4.10 Flash weatherboard at lounge and dining sills

2.5.9 Install sill flashing & weep holes at W6, W18, D 15

2.9.6 Obscure glazing to W10 and W 13 and replace undersize glass to W1, glaze to lower W 22

2.10.1 Refix raised D2 entry frame fit new archs, flash / seal under & sides to slab and brickwork

2.12.3 Realign out of square wall to shower / WC claimed

2.13.3 North plaster to be isolated by cavity from external brickwork & install frame and plaster to above door

2.14.2 Hybeams require saddles and stiffening at north end

2.19.8 Glue laminate / backblock flooring near steps to correct flex at non staggered joins

2.27.3 Allow to replace scratched glass after cleaning

2.27.12 enclose and paint 250 EB 37EB1 with galvanized beam (includes 2.8.3 and 2.8.4)

2.27.11 Allow to modify pier beside D2 to engineers specs

2.27.14 Allow to alter D9, D20, and D22 to lift off

7.7 Table 6: Items that were in dispute but now liability and quantum accepted by the parties or decided by the Tribunal as agreed by the parties at the on-site inspection of 8 June 2004.

Retaining wall - Not defect as part of incomplete variation

2.9.2 Mortar fill and close off gaps to brickwork around openings and brick sills

Part doubled up, appropriate amount to be added to rectification cost. $320

The builder accepts this was a contractual responsibility.

Builder accepted owners excavated and gave some assistance, he disagreed with number of days. I allow the owners 4 days.

Builder agreed he accepted owners' offer to move bricks from front to rear: allow claim.

Builder agrees that he accepted owners filling of the eastern trench but submits this trench was a variation from the initial plans. I accept it was a variation as a result of deletion of the originally proposed boundary retaining walls and therefore if the owners hadn't filled the trench, it would have been a charge to them.

Builder denies he requested the owners to do this, however it is something that the builder would had to have done to complete the works and he accepted their assistance. I have allowed half the sum claimed.

Fees for town planning amendment due to misalignment on building set out.

Builder submits is part of the expert witness costs and I agree.

Locksmith to change locks as no keys provided by builder.

Builder accepts window omitted, submits that owners claim of $442 for window should be reduced by the equivalent cost of brickwork for same area. I agree. $442 minus $150.

No blue pack bricks in accordance with specification.

I accept that a pack of blue bricks was required under the specification; however as I understand the current stage of construction of the house no further brickwork is required and it would be unreasonable to attempt to insert individual blue bricks at this time for visual effect: Bellgrove v Eldridge [1954] HCA 36; (1954) 90 CLR 613; denied.

I accept that the door schedule in the specification included furniture and I accept the credit claimed, as the owners had to supply these door locks.

The owners claimed $1000 to amend the architectural drawings to accord with what is built. The builder submitted that a substantial number of the amendments were due to either the council or the owners changing their plans, which I accept. I allow half the claim.

There were two different roller doors specified, in the contract documents, one in the architectural drawings and a different one in the specification. The plans and specification were provided by the owners, therefore this claim fails.

Builder submitted covered in plumbing quote, owners disagreed with reference to the drawings. Accept owners' submission.

I accept the builder's submission that it is not specified on the drawings and it would have been a variation.

Smaller than shown on approved drawing and I accept.

Door purchases a prime cost item: prime cost adjustment.

The owners claimed a credit of $2109 as an unspent sum of the prime cost allowance for doors of $5479. The builder produced the invoices for the purchase of the doors from "Corinthian" and "Stegbar" that the purchases total $5529.20 which means the builder is entitled to a prime cost adjustment in his favour of $57.70 This includes the prime cost margin of 15%.

The owners maintained that two had not been provided, however, the builder submitted that there was only one not provided and I accept his submission.

Roof ladder installation as required to specification.

Builder maintained this was not in the scope of works. I accept the owners' submission that it was.

The builder agrees that it was not provided but said an allowance should be made for the window that was installed in place of the glass bricks and I agree. The owners' claim of $500 is reduced to $231.30.

Cost difference between upper deck which varied from contract drawings of timber frame and decking to concrete.

The owners initially claimed that the difference was $5127 however there were overclaims on the margins applied in their estimates of costs. Whereas the builder had costed the difference as at the date of the change and came to a much lower costs; I have carried out my own assessment with what I consider to be appropriate margins and at today's costs to assess the owners' credit as at today's date, I do not consider every element of costs could be assessed at the date of the change or that a mixture of costing the times is appropriate. I am the most confident of the current costing elements as opposed to costings at earlier times.

7.11 Table 10: Variations claimed by the builder.

The builder has claimed ten variations. The general conditions of contract Clause 23 requires that a builder must not give effect to any variation unless the owners give the builder a signed consent to or a request for the variation attached to a copy of the written notice requesting the variation.

7.12 Further, by the provisions of Section 37 of the Act "Requests for Variations to the Works by the Builder" and Section 38 "Requests for Variations to the Works by the Building Owner", a builder is only entitled to recover money from the owner in respect of a variation, where he has not complied with the provision of written notices, if the Tribunal is satisfied:

(i) t_hat there are exceptional circumstances or that the builder would suffer a significant or exceptional hardship by the operation of paragraph (a); and_

(ii) that it would not be unfair to the building owners for the builder to recover the money.

7.13 It was agreed by both parties that none of the variations sought by builder were made in accordance with Clause 23 of the contract or complied with Sections 37 or 38 of the Act.

7.14 The builder faces a further substantial hurdle in that the builder produced no proof of expenditure, such as invoices, in relation to any of the works on which he claimed additional costs. The builder in evidence said that such itemized invoices did exist. However, in cross-examination he agreed that none of these invoices or records of costs had been discovered in his list of documents. When pressed on this he said that he had not been requested by his solicitor to produce them. However, I note that when discussing the adjustment of the prime cost allowance for the internal doors the builder could produce the two relevant invoices, "Corinthian" and "Stegbar", in regard to windows and doors: see Item 20, Table 9. On balance I consider he either doesn't have such invoices or his record keeping on the site was not sufficiently detailed to allow him to ascertain with any certainty the specific costs of the variations claimed. For this reason I have no confidence in the builder's assessment of the cost of the variations claimed.

7.15 The parties agree that there were variations discussed between the owners and the builder and that a significant amount of items of work varied from that in the contract plans and specification. In light of the statutory requirements and his lack of evidence of quantum can the builder recover?

7.16 I take "recover" in the context of Sections 37 and 38 of the Act to mean that a builder secures a judgement in a Court, Tribunal or other adjudication for such variations against the opposition of the owners: Pavey and Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul [1987] HCA 5; (1987) 162 CLR 221.

7.17 I consider Section 37 is intended to be a code for the assessment of whether a builder can recover the costs of expenditure on a variation to the contractual scope of works. Thus, if the builder does not comply with the requirements of the section he cannot recover the costs of that variation. The basic thrust of the section is that if a builder has not given the owners a written notice complying with subsection 37(1) and has obtained a signed consent from the owner; or, alternatively, the variation was brought about by a building notice or order of the building surveyor subsection 37(2); the builder cannot recover unless the Tribunal is satisfied under subsection 37(3)(b):-

(i) there are exceptional circumstances or the builder would suffer significant or exceptional hardship; and,

7.18 Prior to the enactment of this section in the Act of 1995, the previous applicable enactment, Subsection 19(1) of the House Contracts Guarantee Act 1987, was in the same wording of Subsection 37(1) of the Act but it did not have the exculpatory subsection (3). Beach J. held in Sevastapoulos v Spanos [1991] VicRp 59; (1991) 2 VR 194 that the wording of Subsection 19(1) meant that unless the builder had complied with the section he could not recover via the contract or on a common count for work and labour done, nor, in estoppel or waiver unless it had been established that the owners were specifically aware of the requirement that the builder's must be authorised in writing to carry out variations. To the extent that it is applicable Sevastapoulos is still binding on this Tribunal; therefore, I consider that to recover, the builder needs to establish the exculpatory grounds made out in subsection 3. No evidence was produced to me that established that these were exceptional circumstances or that the builder would suffer exceptional hardship if he did not recover.

7.19 Would the builder suffer "significant hardship" if he was not allowed to recover the costs of the variations verbally agreed to and that were either requested or accepted by the owners? The use of the word "significant" requires that it add something to the meaning and purpose of the subsection. If adjectives had not been used to describe the hardship I consider any nontrivial actual identifiable hardship could be sufficient. 'Significant' according to the Macquarie Dictionary when used as an adjective means "important, of consequence, expressing a meaning, indicative, suggestive." Used in the context of Subsection (3) I would adopt a meaning of "of consequence". As shown by the approach of the parties and the Tribunal in this hearing $350.00 was not considered to be a trivial amount, however, when comparing the cost of hearing time and the normal time it takes to hear all evidence in relation to a particular allegation of defective work, $350.00, which represents approximately 10 minutes hearing time, could not be regarded as a significant cost in a dispute over that particular item. This is one way of trying to assess the impact of the adjective in "significant hardship". Thus in the context of this case I would consider that any amount more than $200.00 would be significant i.e. "of consequence", this I concede is a value judgement and dependent upon the factual circumstances of each case.

7.20 Assuming there is significant hardship to the builder at this stage, the second requirement that needs to be met is that it is fair to the owners. In this case Mr Racine agreed that a number of the variations had been discussed between the owners and the builder, the owners had been told by the builder that additional costs were involved in a number of the variations and that the owners had agreed to those variations being carried out at the estimates of cost that were given. Mr Racine agreed that he had prepared notes in relation to the owners' discussions with the builder. The notes, under the heading "Additional Costs", set out the following list:

7.21 Mr Racine gave evidence that for a number of the items the builder had given him an estimate of cost. I consider it is fair that where the builder discussed the need for a variation with the owners and gave an estimate of cost that the owners pay that estimate of cost. Where there is no discussion and agreement or there is no estimate of cost then it is not fair to expect the owners to pay: for a similar line of analysis see Sevastapoulos (supra), page 205. My assessment of each of the builder's claims for variation is set out in Table 10 below.

Mr Racine agrees that this was discussed and it was in his confirmation to the builder under additional costs, Mr Racine's evidence was that no price was discussed or any estimate given by the builder; therefore, the builder cannot recover.

Revise lower front deck due to lack of information on engineering drawings.

Mr Racine in his evidence said this was never discussed; therefore it is not allowed.

Mr Racine agreed that the need for the retaining walls as required by the Shire of Yarra Ranges had been discussed and said he had been given an estimate that the additional price would be approximately $2000. The builder claims the sum of $8882. However, as noted above there is no proof of this expenditure. The builder in his letter to the architect on 16 December 2002 when discussing whether the parties would mutually terminate the contract said that in his assessment of the financial side of the contract for extras for retaining walls he claimed $2266. I allow him $2000 for this variation.

Cost of additional work to garage slab to turn it into a retaining wall.

The builder claimed $768 for this work; however, it is not noted in his letter claiming extras of 16 December 2002 and the work is to change the garage wall floor slab joint into a fix joint so that the wall could become a retaining wall. This change to the garage floor slab was never discussed with Mr Racine and I consider that the builder allowed for it in his extras in his letter of 16 December 2002 for retaining walls: therefore, this variation request is disallowed.

Mr Racine gave evidence that the owners had given the builder of a photograph of a bulkhead they wanted in the hallway and that Mr Pratley said he would do that at no extra cost; therefore, disallow.

Mr Racine said this was discussed and the only charge would be if a post was put at the end of the wall, no post was installed by the time the builder had left the site: disallow.

Mr Racine in his evidence said that this had never been discussed and he had no knowledge of this claim: disallow.

There has been a dispute between the builder and the owners as to whether this was part of the contract works. The builder's position was that it was not part of the contract works and should be considered a variation. The builder did not fulfil the requirements of the contract or the Act and therefore the claim is disallowed.

Engineering computations for retaining walls and the variation to and changing the top deck from timber to concrete.

Mr Racine's evidence was that this was discussed and that there would be charge for changing the upper deck to concrete and that the cost for the top deck was going to be up to $250. I disallowed the builder's claim of $977 and allow the sum agreed by the owners of $250.

7.23 Tables 11 and 12: Engineers rectification items.

Each party called evidence from a structural engineer, the builder called Dr A Baigent, consulting engineer, who produced reports and gave evidence; similarly, Mr K MacLeod, consulting engineer produced reports and gave evidence on behalf of the owners. As with the building consultants, the structural engineers consulted extensively during the hearing process and in conjunction they produced four rectification drawings, numbered MCO71: RW2 - B: "Ground Floor"; MC071: RW1 - B: "Footings"; MCO71: RW4 - A: "Detail 2"; and MCO71: RW3 - B: "Detail 1". These drawings noted each allegation of required engineering rectification work, the individual allegations were then colour coded as to whether the engineers agreed on the method and degree of rectification or whether they disagreed; "yellow" for agree and "red" for disagree. Table 11 contains the yellow items and Table 12 sets out the red items. The estimated costs of rectification for each engineering item were carried out by the building consultants; Mr P Sullivan for the builder and Mr D Cheong for the owners.

7.24 The engineers were sworn in together and their evidence on each item was heard concurrently. They gave evidence one after each other on each individual item as we worked our way through Tables 11 and 12. The process of taking evidence in this way was to concentrate on the engineers' evidence and once each engineer had addressed me on a specific item, the engineers were encouraged to question each other so that I could understand the engineering differences between them in their approach to an individual item.

7.25 In relation to the costing of the rectification of the engineering items I, again, heard evidence from each of the building consultants. In the tables set out below in the comments column I have noted where the building consultants have agreed on a rectification cost. Where the engineers or building consultants have disagreed I have set out the explanation in the comments column if it is reasonably brief. On the small number of items where the experts' discussions were extensive, items EA6 to EA9 inclusive, my comments in relation to these, are in the subparagraphs immediately before Table 11.

7.26 There was some disagreement between the building consultants as to the scope of a number of major rectification items. Mr Sullivan was of the opinion that some items were 'doubled up', at least to some extent. In others, both building consultants agreed that slow and costly methods of rectification; e.g. in underpinning, etc, would be required but there was significant differences as to techniques and costs. This gave rise to large differences in rectification costs between the building consultants, with Mr Cheong estimating the underpinning rectification costs at $23,393 and Mr Sullivan estimating it at $9954. In general, both building consultants agreed that EA6 deals with the underpinning required beneath the kitchen/poolroom wall and EA9 deals with the underpinning beneath the southerly wall of the poolroom. Underpinning is difficult work, the access to the site of each individual underpin, the removal of the soil and the placement of the concrete is extremely difficult, it will all be hand work, with high probability that extensive amounts of mudstone will need to be excavated by hand.

7.27 Mr Sullivan's underpinning process allowed that on day one: two men would excavate three underpins, drill into the existing footing system and fix dowels; and, finally, fix the steel reinforcement for three underpins. On the second day, the two men would have three pins inspected, the formwork built for each and the concrete poured into the underpin; day three, the formwork could be stripped and any required grout is installed. Allowing an additional day for the two men, this gives 20 man days for nine underpins, which at a carpenters rate of $35.00 gives a labour cost for underpinning of $5,600.00.

7.28 Mr Cheong's opinion was that Mr Sullivan's underestimated both the labour time and volume the concrete required for the underpins. Mr Cheong was of the opinion that much of the excavation for the underpins would be in mudstone. He considered that for the underpins at the rear of the poolroom it would take two men one day to excavate the soil and rock beneath the footing to site one underpin. As there are nine underpins this would represent eighteen man days for excavation only; whereas, Mr Sullivan allowed six days for the excavation of nine underpins. This area is difficult to estimate as there are so many unknowns, but given the tight working conditions and difficulties of access I accept Mr Cheong's opinion that the construction of a number of these underpins will have to be undertaken from beneath the dwelling. All excavated material will have to be wheelbarrowed out off the site and all concrete wheelbarrowed in. Further, I consider that given the number, size and depth of the underpins of the lounge kitchen wall most of the eroded slope (that Mr Macleod proposes to cover with spray concrete: see ED6) will have to be excavated due to the need to give sufficient room to quickly fix the underpin reinforcement and formwork and get access to hand shovel the concrete into the underpin; and, also due to the crumbly nature of the soil and mudstone and the propensity, therefore, for overbreak. I accept Mr Cheong's opinion that the underpins beneath the kitchen/poolroom wall will result in most of the slope being excavated and having to be removed by hand from beneath the house. I consider this is also the opinion of Dr Baigent, it is the main reason Dr Baigent resists Mr MacLeod's required rectification of spraycreting the existing slope between the kitchen/poolroom wall and the third wall underneath the living area adjacent to the spoon drain: i.e. ED6. Dr Baigent maintains that by the time the underpinning is done so much of the slope will be removed that there will be no real slope left to spraycrete. I agree with Mr Cheong's and Dr Baigent's opinion, therefore, I allow Mr Cheong's estimate of the underpinning for EA6 and EA8 for the sum of $23,393.00.

7.29 Conversely, this means that I do not consider the slope at the lounge/kitchen wall needs to be spraycreted and item ED6 on Table 12 is disallowed. Mr MacLeod in his evidence raised a further concern that if the existing batter under the house on the northern side of the kitchen/poolroom wall was removed it may lead to excessive earth pressure from the earth being retained on the southern face of this wall leading to unacceptable rotational forces. As stated above, I accept that most of the batter will be removed when the underpinning works are carried out and that the rest of the batter can be cut down or removed to ensure that it would not be unstable in the future. If detail design for the rectification works establishes that the earth pressure from the south of the wall would result in excessive rotation stresses then I consider that the soil removed can be replaced by a single size gravel at a fairly low cost so as to stabilize the soil pressures on the wall between the north and south faces or the underpins can be widened to satisfactorily resist the rotation forces. I do not consider that this would cost a significant amount of money and I would not make an allowance for it in this analysis. Therefore, on balance I have allowed Mr Cheong's cost of underpinning in EA6 and EA8 and I have refused to allow any cost for ED6.

7.30 In relation to EA7: "Existing bearer to be stiffened and provide additional stumps" and EA9: "Replace all existing stumps and found in mudstone", Mr Sullivan considered that these in effect were the same item. Mr Cheong disagreed. Mr Sullivan points out that both engineering rectification items deal with the same area that is the kitchen/poolroom wall over the width of the poolroom. EA7 arises from a note on rectification drawing RW1: B where there is an arrow pointing to a solid dash line running down the middle of the wall and the note "Existing 90 x 45 bearer to be stiffened by nail laminating an additional beam of same size, also provide an additional stump between each existing so that maximum bearer span = 1000. All stumps to the founded in mudstone (1200 below surface)" EA9 arises from a reference to a delineation line drawn around the pool room section of the kitchen/pool room wall (of which the arrow referencing EA7 goes to the dashed line in the middle) with a note to the line stating "Confirm that this section of strip footing not constructed. Replace all existing stumps with new longer stumps founded in mudstone. Additional stumps as noted." I prefer Mr Sullivan's analysis of the situation as he identified the overlap between the items, I do so with the proviso that in EA6 where it says that provide an additional stump between each existing it should be noted that it also says that all stumps are to be founded on mudstone. There is no evidence that the existing stumps are founded on mudstone, and I consider that to carry out a proper inspection of each stump to ensure this criterion was met would be more expensive than replacing each existing stump, therefore, I allow for the replacement of all stumps involved. As I read Mr Sullivan's evidence that is what he allowed, i.e. laminating up the bearer and replacing all the stumps; therefore, I will allow this item in the sum of Mr Sullivan's estimate of $1254.

The relevant engineering rectification drawing reference is given. The items are numbered sequentially starting in the top left hand corner of rectification drawing RW1 and proceeding clockwise to note all agreed engineering rectification (yellow highlighted) items on that drawing. Then go to the top left hand corner of the next rectification drawing RW2 and go to the next item sequentially i.e. EA10 and repeat the process through all rectification drawings.

Cheong's costing allowed for a better concrete finish whereas Mr Sullivans finish was rougher. I accept Mr Cheong's submission that the finish should be to a neat and satisfactory standard to allow for a satisfactory surface finish eg. tiling without a great deal of additional work. I allow Mr Cheong's estimate of $1935.

Mr Sullivan allowed for inspection only at $85 whereas Mr Cheong allowed for some rectification if necessary. I disallowed item ED2 on Table 12 which would have seen an additional beam inserted to support this area of the condeck and therefore I think some allowance should be made to rectify the seating and I will allow Mr Cheong's estimate of $800.

Underpinning as in section 5 - RW4

Existing bearer to be stiffened and provide additional stumps

Underpinning as in section 7 - RW4

Re-level roof pitching beam and truss supported at pier

Install additional L3 as in section 1: RW2

Construct paving slab and timber pergola as detailed

Provide additional stumps to cantilever joists and beams

West pier footing as in section 6: RW1

West pier footing as in section 6: RW1

7.32 Table 12: Engineering rectification items disagreed.

The identification of the individual items of disagreed rectification work (red highlighted) are the same as for Table 11.

Dr Baigent considered this unnecessary but were a significant other plumbing defects both in number and seriousness; see Table 2. I accept Mr MacLeod's opinion that it is necessary to remove the soil and inspect the sewer for compliance with plumbing regulations

New 150 UC 23 under bondeck and brick piers each end

Dr Baigent submitted that this area was sufficiently supported without this beam and, further under EA5 an inspection was to be made to ensure that the bondeck had proper bearing onto the ground support at the rear of the slab and if not to install satisfactory bearing. I agree that in this case that by allowing EA5; therefore, this item is unnecessary.

Mr Cheong's estimate to rectify was $2,400 and Mr Sullivan's was $2,200. The engineers agreed in their discussions before the Tribunal that such a wall was necessary to minimize the risk of any land slip at the back of the house to an acceptable level. Allowed

75mm spraycrete with SL62 mesh to batter between kitchen/poolroom wall and living room wall

Saw cut and remove section of cantilever slab and verify existence of re-enforcement

Dr. Baigent disagrees that another channel section is required under the stud wall as the channel has been located on the brick work veneer leaf rather than the timber stud wall. Dr Baigent considers that the wall is stiff and that there are no deflections obvious in either the beam or the floor joists which appear adequately fixed to the beam the existing arrangement is satisfactory. He considers that provided that the nailing plate was inspected to ensure the floor joists were adequately supported. Mr MacLeod's opinion was that notwithstanding this, the change of the roof to trusses meant that the trusses were bearing onto the stud wall that was now not supported by the beam it was meant to be supported by in the design and that the stud wall will not have sufficient inherent strength over time to resist long term deflection causing problems to the wall and the window frames. Having inspected the site and given the large span, in a domestic context, of L2; I consider it is more likely than not that long term problems will arise and beam L2 should be installed. Costs agreed.

8.1 There were a number of large items in Table 6 that could not be addressed at the site meeting of 8 June 2004 and were left for evidence from the engineers and further consideration and costing by the building consultants. The whole evidence in relation to the last of the items in dispute was not completed until the last hearing day. These items and my assessment of them follow.

8.2 These items are at page 4 of Table 6, comprising the following items 1.2.5, 1.2.6, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.6, 2.1.7, 2.1.8, 2.1.11, 2.1.12, 2.1.14 and 2.9.4. All experts agree that sarking is required under the specification; however, it was not installed by the builder. The roof also has significant structural problems, one is there is a significant twist in the whole roof structure due to the settlement of the existing pier at the north west corner of the house. A number of the roof trusses are exhibiting bowing which Mr MacLeod considers should be straightened to achieve the tolerances specified by the truss manufacturer. Dr Baigent is of the opinion that the top chords of the trusses appear to be adequately supported and braced by the tile battens and the other vertical bracing members and such straightening was unnecessary as due to the support of the bracing there is no diminution in the strength of the trusses. Dr Baigent also recommended that the twist in the roof due to the settlement of the north west column could be removed by jacking up the roof with the tiles in place and then refixing the roof to the column after its footing had been rectified. Mr Cheong recommends that the tiles be removed prior to any rectification.

8.3 Mr Sullivan's primary position is that the roof is under warranty from the tile manufacturer, Boral, and therefore it is not the builder's responsibility. I disagree with Mr Sullivan. The builder's obligation was to produce for the owners a roof that performed satisfactorily. The roof obviously does not do that and significant elements, such as sarking, which I understand is required by the Building Code of Australia, are missing. If the builder wanted his roofing subcontractor, Boral, to be responsible he should have joined that company as a respondent to this action.

8.4 Given that the roof trusses already have bows in the top chord that is outside the manufacturer's recommendations and the roof has a significant twist from the settlement of the north west column, I do not consider it prudent to attempt to jack up the settled area in the north west corner with the tiles remaining on the roof; any tendency to overstress roof members in the jacking process will be greatly exacerbated by the weight of the tiles. Secondly, and just as importantly, it is necessary to install sarking and I consider this can only be done satisfactorily if the tiles are removed and the sarking is installed between the tiles and the battens; also, it will be much less dangerous. Further, I consider the removal of the tiles before any jacking will result in far fewer problems in the future. Therefore, I consider that any rectification costing should allow for the removal of the tiles. Mr Sullivan's estimate to carry out this work was $12,255 and Mr Cheong's estimate was $13,560. Given that Mr Sullivan explained his estimate in evidence I accept his quote of $12,255.

Particleboard replacement and fixing together, floor levelling and consequential issues.

8.5 Mr Sullivan submitted in evidence that the total of rectification costs to deal with the balance of Table 6 which was rectification issues dealing with particle board, floor levelling and consequential damage as a result of levelling to plaster etc. was $16,402.

8.6 Mr Cheong's estimate for the same items of work was $21,828.20. Both experts prepared details costings and I accept the method by which the experts have costed them. To have both experts explain their estimates in detail, so that I could decide between them, would have required another day of hearing and I suggested that I take the mean of the estimates to avoid the costs of a further days hearing, the parties did not disagree. The mean of the experts estimate is $19,115.00 and I so find..

9.1 The owners in their final submission submitted that their calculation of liquidate damages was forty-nine weeks and that the builder's assessment of liquidated damages was that they were only applicable for forty-three weeks. As stated above I calculate that the contractual date for completion of the works was 29 January 2002 and I consider that the contract was terminated by the owners' show cause of 16 December 2002. Therefore, I consider that liquidated damages are applicable for forty-seven weeks at the agreed contract rate of $250 per week, a sum of $11,750.00.

10.1 I can now set out a contract reconciliation to assess which party is to be recompensed by the other party:-

10.2 This completes my reasons in this proceeding. I would like to indicate my appreciation to the parties, Counsel and all experts for their co-operation in achieving, in circumstances that can be very stressful and emotional to the parties, a co-operative hearing that has significantly minimized the hearing time and thereby the parties' costs in this litigation.

10.3 I have had the registry set this matter down for a 1 hour hearing commencing at 2:15 pm on 30 November 2004 to finalize my orders in this proceeding and to deal with any other submissions of the parties.