BUILDCHECK - TONY KELLAR - 5.2.2016
I regret to advise I was not successful in defending the OC's position in the Buildcheck dispute.
We were unable to provide evidence to back up our claim that Buildcheck’s brief was to provide us with an expert opinion on the cost of returning Harper’s apartment to its original condition. The LMS Lawyers' instructions, which were provided by Buildcheck, didn't provide clear evidence of this either.
Consequently, the Member looked to "Instructions" as set out in the each of the Buildcheck reports. Significantly, she determined that the 2nd report had “different” Instructions, in that Buildcheck had been asked to “review costings, rationalise with costings from Lock Building Group and include costs to remove a stone dining table”, which in her view, constituted a different task.
She accepted Buildcheck’s assertion that the scope of works which he was required to cost for the 1st report was only as provided for in Dr Jones’ report of 16 November 2014, the VCAT order of 17 October 2014 and John Lyng Group’s scope dated 14 May 2014. She also accepted Buildcheck’s assertion that the 2nd report, whilst it addressed many of the issues covered in the 1st report, was fundamentally different.
Whilst it doesn’t provide us with much consolation, the Member made the point that we might have an issue to take up with the lawyers we engaged to instruct Buildcheck.
The outcome is that the OC is going to have to pay Buildcheck's invoice and costs of $174.