Scott Schedule Construction Example

A Scott Schedule is a structured document used to detail specific claims, defenses, and evidence in construction disputes. Below is an example of a Scott Schedule in a hypothetical construction dispute involving a homeowner and a contractor. This example outlines the typical format and content of a Scott Schedule, including descriptions of the claims, defenses, and supporting evidence.

Scenario

A homeowner (Claimant) has identified several defects in a recently completed renovation project by a contractor (Respondent). The homeowner is claiming for the costs to rectify these defects.

Example Scott Schedule

Parties:

• Claimant: John Doe (Homeowner)
• Respondent: ABC Constructions Pty Ltd (Contractor)

Detailed Breakdown of Each Item

Item 1: Cracked Walls

• Claimant’s Position: The cracks appeared shortly after the renovation was completed. The claimant asserts that these cracks are due to poor workmanship and the use of substandard materials. The claimant seeks compensation for the costs to repair and repaint the affected areas.
• Respondent’s Position: The respondent argues that the cracks are a result of the natural settling of the building, which is beyond their control. They deny that the cracks are due to poor workmanship or materials.
• Supporting Evidence:
  • Photographs: Images showing the extent and location of the cracks.
  • Building Inspection Report: A detailed report from an independent building inspector highlighting the nature and cause of the cracks.
  • Expert Witness Statement: A structural engineer’s statement confirming that the cracks are indicative of poor workmanship.

Item 2: Leaking Roof

• Claimant’s Position: The roof has been leaking since the first heavy rainfall post-renovation, causing significant water damage. The claimant argues that the leaks are due to improper installation and inadequate sealing by the contractor.
• Respondent’s Position: The respondent claims that the roof was installed correctly according to standard procedures and that the leaks are due to unusually severe weather conditions, not any fault in the installation.
• Supporting Evidence:
  • Photographs: Images of water damage on the ceiling and walls.
  • Video: Footage showing the roof leaking during rainfall.
  • Roofing Expert Report: An independent roofing expert’s report identifying installation faults and inadequate sealing.

Item 3: Uneven Flooring

• Claimant’s Position: The timber flooring in the living room is uneven and creaks, indicating improper installation. The claimant is seeking compensation for the costs to rectify the flooring.
• Respondent’s Position: The respondent maintains that the flooring was installed correctly and any unevenness is within the acceptable tolerance levels for natural timber flooring. They argue that the creaking is a natural characteristic of the timber.
• Supporting Evidence:
  • Photographs: Images showing the uneven sections of the floor.
  • Flooring Inspection Report: A report from a flooring inspector detailing the installation issues.
  • Video: Footage demonstrating the creaking sound when walking on the floor.

Item 4: Improperly Installed Windows

• Claimant’s Position: Several windows are difficult to operate, suggesting improper installation. The claimant seeks to have the windows reinstalled correctly or replaced.
• Respondent’s Position: The respondent claims that the windows were installed as per the manufacturer’s specifications and any difficulties are due to user mishandling.
• Supporting Evidence:
  • Photographs: Images showing the misalignment of the windows.
  • Manufacturer’s Guidelines: Documentation of the correct installation procedures from the window manufacturer.
  • Expert Report: An independent expert’s report on the installation quality of the windows.

Item 5: Inadequate Plumbing

• Claimant’s Position: The water pressure in the bathrooms is significantly lower than acceptable levels due to substandard plumbing work by the contractor. The claimant is seeking compensation for the costs to rectify the plumbing.
• Respondent’s Position: The respondent asserts that the plumbing was done according to the agreed specifications and that the water pressure issue is due to municipal supply problems, not their work.
• Supporting Evidence:
  • Water Pressure Test Results: Documentation of the low water pressure levels in the bathrooms.
  • Plumbing Inspection Report: A report from an independent plumbing inspector identifying the issues with the installation.
  • Statements from Other Homeowners: Testimonies from other homeowners in the area confirming normal water pressure levels, suggesting the issue is isolated to the claimant’s property.

Conclusion

This example Scott Schedule demonstrates the structured format and detailed content required to present a construction dispute clearly and comprehensively. By organizing each claim, defense, and supporting evidence in this manner, the Scott Schedule helps the court or tribunal understand the specifics of the dispute and make informed decisions. Engaging a building consultant or expert witness to prepare and submit the Scott Schedule ensures accuracy and enhances the credibility of the claims.

liberateyoursons

See Full Bio