Your preferred office location:
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. HHG Articles
  4. /
  5. Can Builders be liable for damages for home owner’s loss of enjoyment of home?: Builders Beware, Owners Take Note
7 Apr 2017

What makes a house a home, a place for the kids to play in, to entertain friends and family? A safe and tranquil place where you can relax and truly be yourself? If you instead are faced with the mess and anguish of dealing with defective home building work, can you claim compensation?

Since 1995, the UK’s highest court, the House of Lords, has recognised that generally, a home building contract is intended to afford a home owner “pleasure, relaxation, peace of mind or freedom from molestation”, so that home owners who miss out on these benefits because of defective home building work are entitled to be compensated for that “loss of amenity”.   Ruxley Electronics and Construction Limited v Forsyth [1995] UKHL 8 (“Ruxley”).

Ruxley has been followed by other Courts in the UK (for example, in Newman v Framewood Manor Management Co Limited [2012] EWCA CIV 159; [2012] ALL ER (D) 144 (Feb)) and by Supreme Courts in Australia (for example, in D Galambos & Son Pty Ltd v McIntyre (1974) ACTR 10 and Carosella v Ginos & Gilbert Pty Ltd (1981) 27 SASR (515)).

What is the position in Australia?

However, in Australia, Ruxley’s application is few and far between and there has never been a definitive statement of the availability of damages for loss of amenity, in a home building context. This may seem surprising given the High Court of Australia’s recognition that generally, damages are available for loss of amenity or loss of enjoyment of the benefit of a contract in, for example, the context of a spoilt holiday, since the 1993 decision of Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon (1993) 176 CLR 344.

At least one commentator believes that in Australia, as in England, the law should take the step of applying this principle in a home building context (Bates, ‘The Assessment of Contractual Damages for Defective Building Work in Australia: is Loss of Amenity an Available Measure?’ (1999) 15 BCL 2).

One explanation for why Australia seems to be lagging behind the UK in awarding damages for loss of amenity to owners of defectively built homes may be that in Australia, administrative or technical tribunals rather than courts generally deal with home building defect complaints.

Often, it appears that these tribunals follow their own internal logic and the prior decisions of their own Members, rather than the precedents of Australian and UK courts, even though, by the doctrine of precedent, only superior courts’ decisions have the authority to bind future courts and tribunals.

What is the position in WA?

A recent example in Western Australia was the State Administrative Tribunal’s (“SAT”) decision in Dumbreck & Tangent Nominees Pty Ltd [2016] WASAT 138.

In that case, two SAT Members decided that compensation for loss of amenity was not available to the owner of a defectively built home.

This is surprising because the scope of damages recoverable under paragraph 36(1)(c) of the Building Services (Complaints Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (‘New Act’) is wider than it was under the repealed section 12A of the Builders’ Registration Act (“Old Act’) 1939. The SAT Members themselves acknowledged this when they quoted a passage from the Explanatory Memorandum to the New Act which says that damages under the New Act are sometimes intended to cover more than just the cost of remedying defects.

This is consistent with the law that has developed in the courts independently of the New Act. In the courts, other measures of damages are awarded when it is not appropriate to order either remediation or payment of the cost to engage someone else to remedy the defects. Those are the very kinds of cases where the courts, particularly in the UK, have recognised the availability of damages for loss of amenity.

After considering the Explanatory Memorandum to the New Act, the SAT Members turned to the following factors as further indicating that loss of amenity damages are not available to homeowners:

(a)          that third parties who are affected by defective building work can make a claim under the 
          New Act as well as home owners;

(b)          that the New Act does not specifically refer to “inconvenience and stress arising from the
          physical attributes of home building work not carried out in a proper and proficient  manner 
          or…faulty or unsatisfactory work”

(c)          what the SAT called the ‘tenor’ of the New Act (which appears to mean something akin to the 
          ‘vibe’ referred to in the famous Australian film, The Castle);

(d)          the following observation:

The remedying of the faulty work or the payment of a monetary compensation to an owner to allow the owner to pay a third party to remedy the faulty or unsatisfactory work necessarily includes any costs the owner might incur in moving and storing furniture or in finding alternative accommodation whilst the remedial work is undertaken but only where it can be shown the remedial work cannot be done with the owners and/or their furniture remaining in the property’;

(e)          the fact that some remediation work needs to be done urgently;

(f)           the legislative intention that tribunal proceedings be a ‘relatively inexpensive process’;

(g)          that one ordinarily cannot recover the cost of tribunal proceedings even if one succeeds; and

(h)          that according to SAT, the claim or some part of it could have been made in a court.

Our analysis of SAT’s reasoning

Respectfully, we see no connection between loss of amenity claims and any of these factors. We consider that to mount a persuasive argument against the award of such damages in all cases under the New Act, SAT would have needed to answers the following questions, at least:

(a)          What did the legislature intend to achieve by expanding the defined scope of compensation 
           recoverable under section 36 of the New Act, as compared with section 12A of the Old Act?

(b)          How might SAT’s reasoning be reconciled with the decisions of the High Court in Baltic 
          Shipping Company v Dillon
and the House of Lords in Ruxley?

The Tribunal’s assertion that claims for damages can be made at the same time in SAT and in a court for the same defective work, is respectfully, not quite correct. The only court that could hear and determine such claims, where they have a value of less than $75,000 (which in our experience comprise the majority of home building work claims) would be the Magistrates Court. That Court is expressly barred from hearing and determining any such cases, by paragraph 6(5)(e) of the Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004. Under that provision, such a claim must be made to the Building Commission or, on referral by the Building Commission, to SAT. Owners have no choice of forum in WA.

Even in claims for home building defects in excess of $75,000 (where courts do have jurisdiction), it would usually not make commercial sense for a homeowner to commence separate proceedings in a court alongside related SAT proceedings just to recover some small additional amount of compensation on account of loss of amenity.

Conclusion: findings of law to be left to the Courts

In cases like this, where SAT is being called upon to answer novel legal questions, we respectfully endorse the views expressed by Allanson J in Psaros Builders Pty Ltd v Owners of Strata Plan 52843 [2014] WASC 34. There, his Honour observed that SAT should remember its role as a purely administrative tribunal and leave matters of legal or forensic complexity to the courts to determine. In doing so, SAT should, according to Allanson J, remember, and in appropriate cases, be quick to exercise, its power to refer such matters to the Supreme Court for determination.

Builders and their insurers and industry bodies should watch this space as the law develops. Home owners looking for redress should take appropriate legal advice.



*This is general information only, and does not constitute specific legal advice. Please consult one of our experienced Legal Team for specific advice relevant to your situation.

Supporting Western Australians for more than 100 years

"Always fast and thorough service. Thank you"

Sitka Pil

"My circumstances at the time I made contact with HHG were dire following my argument being rejected by two no win no fee firms. Following my initial meeting with HHG's employment law team I was left feeling extremely positive by the response and concern shown by HHG in regards to their support of my argument along with their preparedness to pursue an outcome on my behalf.

I accept the fact that nobody really wins in these cases (mental health/ workplace) however the end result was what would be considered most favourable and far in excess of what would have been achieved had I not sought the advice from HHG.

I have no hesitation in recommending HHG to anyone caught up in the messy circumstances I found myself in at the time.

Great advice and five-star commitment to their client!!"

Nathan Lynch

"Thank you for such great assistance with the transaction of Flying Domestics on behalf of Lorna Good. It has been such a pleasure to work with the HHG Legal Group and I look forward to working with you in the future."

Jim Goodwin

"Simon Creek and his team were at all times empathic, professional and confident.  My matter needed to be addressed within a pressing time frame, and their availability at short notice and contact after hours was much appreciated.  It caused me considerable stress, but having such a thoroughly reliable and competent team to call on helped me to feel in control. Although I hope not to need their services again in future, I would be confident in doing so!"

Dr Lana Bell

"A good outcome is what we can expect.  A great outcome is a sign of a company which does the very best for their clients. A very big thank you to Daniel Morris for showing empathy towards my small and much needed legal action.

To HHG Legal Group, thank you for a great outcome.  I would recommend your company to anyone seeking legal services."

Jan Atkinson

"Your support this morning was amazingly kind, not to mention your totally reassuring competence, knowledge and wisdom that you used on my behalf.  It was extremely reassuring to have your knowledgeable support, and I particularly appreciated your real and obvious kindness to me. It means so much at a very difficult time. I'm so grateful to you."

Family Law Client

"Janene was very professional and we established a good rapport quickly. The subject of death and wills can be quite confronting to deal with, however, Janene's approach was soft and accommodating."

Lynette Livesey

"A big thank you to HHG for their professional service, continued support, and wide range of legal knowledge. Our clients have given us nothing but kind words regarding HHG Legal Group and so we have no hesitation in referring and recommending Simon Creek and HHG Legal Group for their outstanding services and legal expertise."

Nigel Plowman, Director at Mckinley Plowman & Associates

"Simon is a friendly and practical legal advisor. I have received great feedback from the clients I have referred to him and his team at HHG Legal Group."

Richard Beal, Director at BDO

"Over the last few years, I have been impressed by Simon’s legal ability, management skills, entrepreneurial spirit, personal integrity and people skills. He appears to be that rare breed of lawyer – both knowledgeable and commercial."

Michael Malone, Founder of iiNet

"Our family has been a client of HHG Legal Group over many years.  Business has included drawing up of wills for three generations and preparing of probate for my father in law. I would have no hesitation in recommending HHG Legal Group to anyone requiring such services."

Bernice Climie

"You should be congratulated for the manner in which your staff address clients and we found our dealings with your company, once again a very pleasant experience and we would like to truly thank you for your efforts."

Steve Harvey and Jane Powell

"HHG Legal were absolutely fantastic. Extremely responsive and brought calm to our chaotic family situation through their knowledge and caring attitude. Extremely professional from our very first contact with them and they expertly guided our family though the required legal process over almost a 12 month period."

Amanda Williamson

"Fantastic team! They really care about their client. Tim Colcutt is a 'go that extra mile' guy who gives his client his all. I can't recommend HHG and Tim enough."

Kerry Samson

"I had a fantastic lawyer in Matthew Lilly. He helped me out a great deal with good, sound advice in a friendly, professional manner. First class, thanks Matthew"

Graeme Hammond

"Marine Plant Systems has been working with HHG Legal Group for a few years now and they continually provide first-class service. Their professional advice has been invaluable to our company."

Carolin Grimm - Marine Plant Systems

"We were kept up to date at all times. Pricing was always updated over the time period so we remained "in budget". Personal access to someone whenever I had questions. All in all a great experience without too much fuss."

Rosslyn Tasker - COO Altusq Pty Ltd

"Good service you can count on."

Miles Lee

"HHG Legal Group has provided outstanding support as I have taken the journey of buying a business, their professionalism is beyond reproach. Their assistance throughout the Due Diligence process has been invaluable, I would fully recommend them."

Mark Armitage

"Very friendly and efficient service - what a pleasure working with Matthew."

Jacques Taylor

"I highly recommend Daniel from HHG Lawyer in Mandurah. When dealing with a complicated legal property matter recently I was extremely impressed by Daniel's honesty and integrity and the legal advice I received. I am very happy with the service from HHG Legal."

Tony Walker

"Lisa, thank you so much for representing me in court, honestly, I would not have had the outcome I got without you. Once again, Thank you so much."


"Matthew Lilly was excellent in processing our project. He achieved the excellent result that we required on our project.

We would give Matthew a 5 star rating.

We will definitely commission Matthew for any further projects if we have the need."


"I have had the pleasure of being represented by Ms Lisa Riley. Lisa helped me in December 2020 when I was charged. Lisa was extremely supportive, reassuring, and preserved with her investigation of the laws and was able to save me from a terrible outcome. Another incident occurred in August 2021 in which I sought Lisa’s help. Lisa preserved and was very patient with me. This only got resolved this year. When she advised me that she was leaving her old firm, I insisted that she remain my lawyer, as I had the utmost faith in her. Hence I moved over to HHG. Lisa took no shortcuts in my defence and continued to preserve for the toxicology report that ultimately saved me. She kept me up-to-date with the progress and provided support. Having someone as understanding as Lisa was a huge gift, to me and my family. You have gained a huge asset in Lisa joining your firm.

Thank you, Lisa, forever grateful for your work, and if ever needed, I will be sure to refer to you"


"We can highly recommend HHG Legal Group and particularly Mr Blair Campbell (Special Counsel / Dispute Resolution)

Blair worked with us as we navigated a very difficult third party dispute.

Blair’s expertise, wisdom, and the way he guided us in a very measured and calm manner gave us great encouragement and comfort. Blair helped us to focus on what we needed to and to trust the process.

Blair was always responsive to us, he always got back to us very promptly to answer our questions and to help us to step through some really hard days.

We are very grateful for Blair’s expertise and wisdom along with his empathy and care, this truly made the difference for us."

Wayne and Janice Belcher

Preferred office location:

Please select your nearest office location so we can show you the most relevant information.