The Tribunal declared the Builder liable for defect items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19 and 21, dismissed the Builder's counterclaim in its entirety, and found the Builder repudiated the contract by serving invalid termination notices under cl 22 without establishing common law grounds; the proceeding was listed for a further hearing on quantum. The decision confirms, following Rifat VSCA, that a builder who receives a progress payment for an incomplete stage cannot resist restitution by arguing the owner received value from work done, and that s 53 DBC Act does not confer an at-large discretion to override that principle. A contractual quotation that repeatedly adopts plans 'as per working drawings and engineering' cannot be construed as an exhaustive scope limiter cutting down the incorporated plans, and a cl 22 termination notice that fails to describe alleged breaches with sufficient particularity is ineffective. The question of final quantum, accounting reconciliation, and the precise restitutionary amount was left to a further hearing.
The full text is available to signed-in members.