A recent case has highlighted something that (almost) every person buying a home in WA should know: ‘Major structural defects’ in the context of a contract for the sale of a residential home in WA may not extend to defects of structures other than the residential building, i.e. the house
Many contracts for the sale of a residential home in WA use the REIWA standard form and incorporate the REIWA Annexure A Australian Standard Pre‑Purchase Inspection For Major Structural Defects, or a special condition in similar terms.
REIWA Annexure A in effect permits a purchaser to undertake an inspection of the property for the purpose of identifying major structural defects. If a major structural defect is identified in the inspection report, the purchaser is entitled to issue a notice requiring the seller to remedy the defect, failing which the purchaser can terminate the contract.
Identification of structural defects is important for any purchaser, especially during the conditional period of a sale contract. However, REIWA Annexure A (and its equivalents) can be considered as somewhat ambiguous in its terms. People often do not fully understand what is and is not covered at the time they sign the contract, only finding out too late when they are already in a dispute about their deposit or termination of the sale contract.
The recent judgment in White v Staples t/as Jim’s Building Inspections (Duncraig) [2026] WADC 49 expresses the view that REIWA Annexure A likely does not extend to defects of structures other than the residential building, i.e. the house, unless the house is somehow consequentially affected in a structurally significant way or the other structure is expressly incorporated into the inspection.
In that case, a purchaser is suing a building inspector for failing to identify significant defects with a retaining wall. The defence is essentially that there was no obligation to identify such defects, nor would any defects have given the purchaser any right to issue a notice requiring remediation or to terminate, because the retaining wall was not a part of the residential building, was not required to be inspected pursuant to the sale contract, and the defects are not otherwise captured by REIWA Annexure A.
This interpretation would extend to many structures which purchasers may assume is covered by their structural inspection, such as patios, pergolas, carports, sheds, and fencing.
The judgment was given in the context of a costs application following a summary judgment application, but is nevertheless important for anyone involved in a sale contract dispute in WA. The proceedings will be an interesting one to follow should they progress.
© Bugden Allen Group Legal Pty Ltd. This is general information only and not legal advice. You should not rely on this information without seeking legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances.
This post appears in Strata News #801.
Jonathan O’Connor Bugden Allen E: jonathan@bagl.com.au
This article has been republished with permission from the author and first appeared on the Bugden Allen website.