Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2017
  4. Harper Property Builders Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2017] QCAT 252

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Harper Property Builders Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2017] QCAT 252

Harper Property Builders Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2017] QCAT 252

CITATION:

Harper Property Builders Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2017] QCAT 252

PARTIES:

Harper Property Builders Pty Ltd

(Applicant)

v

Queensland Building and Construction Commission

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

GAR051-17

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

A/Senior Member Paratz

DELIVERED ON:

21 July 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

  1. The application to extend time filed by Harper Property Builders Pty Ltd on 3 March 2017 is dismissed.
  1. The application to review a decision filed by Harper Property Builders Pty Ltd on 3 March 2017 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – where the Queensland Building and Construction Commission made a decision that a residential building contract had been properly terminated – where the builder failed to rectify defects relating to stumps of a house – where it was held that the builder was in substantial breach of the Contract

PROCEDURE – EXTENSION OF TIME

where no reasonable explanation for the delay in applying for a review of the decision was found – where it was held that the application for Review had no reasonable prospects of success

McClintock v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QCATA 68

Benson v Ware [2012] QCATA 24

APPEARANCES:

 

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REPRESENTATIVES:

 

APPLICANT:

represented by Lang, Hemming and Hall

RESPONDENT:

represented by its Legal Officers

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    Harper Property Builders Pty Ltd (the builder) is seeking an extension of time to file an Application to Review a decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) that a residential building contract had been properly terminated.
  2. [2]
    The decision of the QBCC was made on 22 December 2016 by Mr Jonathan Pacey, a Senior Internal Review Officer with the QBCC.
  3. [3]
    The Application to Review the decision of Mr Pacey, and the Application to extend the time limit, were both filed in the Tribunal on 3 March 2017.
  4. [4]
    Directions were given on 18 May 2017 that the application to extend time would be determined by a Member of the Tribunal not before 30 May 2017 on the papers and without an oral hearing, based on the written submissions, unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal and in the absence of a request for an oral hearing by either party.
  5. [5]
    No further orders have been made, and no request for an oral hearing has been received, as to the application to extend time.
  6. [6]
    This is the decision on the application to extend time.

The history of the matter

  1. [7]
    The builder entered into a residential building contract with David Holland and Melanie Holland (the owners) to raise, extend, renovate and build under a house at 76 Sandgate Street, Sandgate.
  2. [8]
    Disputes arose as to the conduct of the work, specifically as to the installation of screw piers and pad footings and support of the building. The owners, by their Solicitors, Skelton Law, gave the builder a Notice of Intention to Terminate Contract on 28 June 2016.
  3. [9]
    The owners then gave the builder a Notice of Termination of Contract on 19 July 2016, by their Solicitors, which relevantly provided:

Harper Property Builders Pty Ltd has not complied with the Notice of Intention to Terminate Contract within 10 business days of the receipt of the Notice of Intention to Terminate Contract. The date for compliance was 12th July 2016.

Your client did not produce sufficient probative documentary evidence of its compliance with the Notice of Intention to Terminate Contract to our client, the certifier or Skelton Law, by 12.00 noon 15th July 2016 as noted in our letter to you dated 14th July 2016.

Our letter dated 14th July 2016 clearly and unambiguously detailed what probative documentary evidence your client had to provide to establish, to the satisfaction of all relevant parties, that your client had remedied the substantial breach in relation to the Screw Pile Pad Footings and their connections to the SHS columns they are intended to support, namely:

  1. Advice obtained from the screw piers designer/manufacturer/installer as to whether the observed offsets are permissible;
  2. A qualified engineers design of either:
    1. (a)
      If the observed offsets are permissible the extensions to each affected headstock; or
    2. (b)
      If observed offsets are not permissible the necessary remedial works such as additional footing beams or additional floor framing
  3. Inspections of a qualified person that the engineers design has been executed, before the pouring of the concrete, and before the carrying out of any other works required by the engineer.
  1. [10]
    The owners made a complaint to the QBCC, and an Early Dispute Resolution meeting was held, which did not resolve the matter. A decision was then made by the QBCC, which was then internally reviewed at the request of the builder.
  2. [11]
    The conclusion stated by Mr Pacey in his decision was:[1]

In my view, the review applicant, by failing to rectify its defective work, was in breach of the contract. The failure to rectify the work constituted a repudiatory act in the circumstances. The homeowners had grounds to terminate the contract and were not in substantial breach of the contract at the point at which they terminated the contract. In my view, the contract was ‘properly terminated’ for the purpose of the Queensland Home Warranty Scheme.

  1. [12]
    A claim under the Queensland Home Warranty Scheme in the amount of $200,000.00 was subsequently approved, and an advice of the approval was sent to the builder by the QBCC on 13 January 2017.
  2. [13]
    The decision of Mr Pacey was made on 22 December 2016. The decision had a Notice attached which advised the builder that an external review of the decision could be lodged with the Tribunal, but must be lodged within 28 days of the decision.
  3. [14]
    The builder lodged an Application to Review in the Tribunal about two and a half months after the decision, and therefore requires an extension of time for a Review to proceed.
  4. [15]
    The Application to Extend Time sought the following orders:
  1. An order extending time for the filing of an application to review the decision of Mr Jonathan Pacey (Senior Internal Review Officer, QBCC) pursuant to section 86C of the QBCC Act on 22 December 2016, in respect of Harper Property Builders Pty Ltd (the Decision).
  2. An order that leave be given to file an application to review the Decision, in the form or substantially the same form as the draft which forms Annexure A to this application.
  1. [16]
    The Application to Review a decision filed by the builder sought the following orders:[2]
    1. A declaration that the Residential Building Contract (level 2) (the Contract) between David and Melanie Holland (the Hollands) and the Applicant was not properly terminated by the Hollands on 19 July 2016.
    2. An order setting aside the decision of Ms Rachael Staff (Claims Officer for the respondent) on 1 September 2016, determining that the Contract had been validly terminated by the Hollands.
    3. An order setting aside the decision of Mr Chris O'Shannessy (Technical Claims Manager of the Respondent) on 28 November 2016, determining the Scope of Works to be undertaken as a claim under the Queensland Home Warranty Scheme.
    4. An order setting aside the decision of Mr Jonathan Pacey (Senior Internal Review Officer of the Respondent) on 22 December 2016, determining (pursuant to section 86C of the QBCC) that the Contract had been validly terminated by the Hollands.
      1. An order setting aside the decision of Ms Rachel Staff (Claims Officer for the Respondent) on 13 January 2017, approving the amount of $200,000.00 in respect of the claim made under the Queensland Home Warranty Scheme.

Considerations on extension of time

  1. [17]
    The Tribunal has power under s 61 of the QCAT Act to extend time for a proceeding. Section 61 of the QCAT Act provides that:

(1) The tribunal may, by order –

(a) extend a time limit fixed for the start of a proceeding by this Act or an enabling Act; or

(b) extend or shorten a time limit fixed by this Act, an enabling Act or the rules; or

(c) waive compliance with another procedural requirement under this Act, an enabling Act or the rules.

(2) An extension or waiver may be given under subsection (1) even if the time for complying with the relevant requirement has passed.

  1. [18]
    The principles applicable to an extension of time were considered in McClintock v Queensland Building Services Authority[3] where the Appeal Tribunal said:[4]

[4] The granting of an extension of time is discretionary. In exercising that discretion the usual principles apply and the learned member quite properly had regard to the accepted principles to be considered on such an application, these are:

a) whether there has been a reasonable explanation of the delay in filing the application for review

b) a consideration of whether the granting of the extension of time would be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances

c) whether there has been any prejudice suffered as a result of the delay; and

d) whether the substantive application has merit.

[5] The above list is not exhaustive and it is also necessary to consider the particular circumstances that relate to the matter under consideration.

  1. [19]
    Similar principles were discussed in Benson v Ware[5] where the Appeal Tribunal said:[6]

[9] Section 61 of the QCAT Act provides that the tribunal may extend procedural time limits fixed for the commencement of proceedings under the QCAT Act. The issue for determination on an application for extension of time is whether the interests of justice are served by granting or refusing the extension sought. Relevant considerations include the length of the delay and the reasons for it; the merits of the appeal and its prospect of success on appeal if leave is granted; and the degree of prejudice to the other party if time is extended.

Delay in applying for Review

  1. [20]
    The builder submitted that he had sought legal advice, but that by the time he had an appointment with his solicitor on 27 January 2017, the time for filing an application under section 87 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (QBCC Act) had passed.
  2. [21]
    The builder’s submissions summarise his evidence in relation to seeing his Solicitor as follows:[7]

[12] The evidence of the Applicant’s director, Mr Harper, is that:

(a) He received notice of the Impugned Decision late in the afternoon on 22 December 2016

(b) while he disagreed with the impugned decision, he believed he would need to obtain further information from sub-contractors to the Applicant and to obtain legal advice in order to dispute the Impugned Decision

(c) he did not appreciate the significance of the time limit for applying for external review of the Impugned Decision, especially since it had been received immediately before the Christmas holiday period

(d) he did not believe he would be able to contact his solicitor until after the Christmas break

(e) consistently with that belief, the Applicant’s solicitor’s office was, in fact, closed from 5pm on 22 December 2016 until 9 January 2017.

(f) Mr Harper returned to work on 16 January 2017, and on 18 January 2017, upon becoming aware that the respondent had approved a claim of $200,000 upon the Queensland Home Warranty Scheme relating to the termination of the domestic building contract, Mr Harper:

(i) contacted Ms Staff of the Respondent to obtain further information about the Impugned Decision;

(ii) contacted his solicitor and made an appointment for 27 January 2017, to allow time to collate information from the subcontractors to the Applicant.

  1. [22]
    The QBCC submits that this submission of the builder does not satisfactorily explain the delay:[8]

35. The Commission submits that even if one accepts the above submissions from the Applicant, there has been no reasonable explanation for the delay. There was a delay of approximately five (5) weeks, in filing the Application to extend time from the date of the Applicant’s alleged meeting with its solicitor on 27 January 2017 until the date the Application to extend time was filed on 3 March 2017.

  1. [23]
    Mr Harper did not make an immediate appointment with his solicitor, when his solicitor’s office re-opened on 9 January 2017; or on 16 January 2017 when Mr Harper returned to work; or on 18 January when Mr Harper became aware of the payment by the insurance scheme.
  2. [24]
    The solicitor’s appointment, when it was made by Mr Harper on 18 January 2017, was not for another nine days. He explains this by saying that he had to collate information necessary to obtain detailed legal advice.
  3. [25]
    No explanation is given by the builder as to why the Application to Review was not filed for about 5 weeks after it met its solicitor.

Prejudice

  1. [26]
    The QBCC does not point to any prejudice it has suffered by the delay.

Structural issues

  1. [27]
    The owners were concerned about the work done by the builder, including the posts underneath the existing house which were offset from the screw pier pad footings/headstocks installed by the builder.
  2. [28]
    The owners obtained a Property Inspection Report dated 12 April 2016 from Pro-Check Building Services Pty Ltd. It concluded that[9]:

The overall condition of this renovation in progress has been compared to industry best practice, and the QBCC guidelines, and is considered to be below industry standards.

  1. [29]
    The owners subsequently obtained a Structural Inspection Report from Morgan Consulting Engineers dated 8 June 2016. The report described the situation of the stumps as follows[10]:

2.2 New Stumps

New steel columns/stumps have been hung from the underside of the timber floor and have been attached to the concrete headstocks of the screw piers below. Many of the steel columns do not line up with the concrete headstocks below and the bolted fixings have been either not installed or installed into the concrete overbreak of the headstock. Many of the steel columns terminate well above the tops of the concrete head stocks and the shafts of the connecting bolts between the head stocks and the steel columns are excessively long (photographs 2 to 13). A number of the bolts are missing as there is no concrete underneath,

  1. [30]
    The report recommended the following:[11]
    1. Obtain advice from the screw pier designer/manufacturer/installer as to whether the observed offsets are permissible;
    2. If the observed offsets are permissible, then engage an engineer to design the extensions to each affected headstock;
    3. If the observed offsets were not permissible, then engage an engineer to design the necessary remedial works, such as additional footing beams or additional floor framing.
  2. [31]
    The builder alleges that he contacted Mr Kym Plotkin of ‘Blade Pile’ the manufacturer of the screw piers on 15 June 2016 when Mr Plotkin confirmed that the observed offsets were not permissible and required additional remedial work.
  3. [32]
    The builder alleges that on 2 July 2016, he engaged Mr Jayanta Bhattacharya of JP Engineers and Architects, a Registered Professional engineer, to design footing beams and other remedial work necessary to rectify the screw pier offset issue.[12]
  4. [33]
    The builder alleges that on 7 July 2016 Mr Bhattacharya issued him with the structural engineering drawings for the construction of the footing beams between the offset screw piers and other remedial work; and a “Form 15 – Compliance Certificate for Building design or Specification” in respect of the proposed remedial work.[13]
  5. [34]
    The builder alleges that between 8 July and 11 July 2016, he performed the remedial work in accordance with the structural drawings issued by Mr Bhattacharya.[14]
  6. [35]
    The builder alleges that on 14 July 2016 Mr Bhattacharya issued him with a Form 16 Inspection certificate certifying that the remedial works had been carried out in accordance with the Structural Engineering Drawings, and that the builder had fully performed the building work necessary to rectify the defects.[15]
  7. [36]
    The owners terminated the Contract on 19 July 2016, by a letter from their solicitors, Skelton Law, terminating the contract for the builder’s failure to perform the rectification work in respect of the offset screw piers.
  8. [37]
    In his decision, Mr Pacey considered these allegations of the builder and concluded that the defective works were not rectified:[16]

The review applicant claims that the ‘original piers had been signed off by client’s engineer (Form 16 issued)’. It appears that the review applicant is referring to the Form 16 by DEQ Consulting Engineers dated 4 March 2016. That Form 16 indicates in the description of the components certified that it relates to the ‘inspection of pad footings (screw piers by others, not part of this certificate’. The Form 16 does not demonstrate that the defective works were rectified when the contract was terminated.

Furthermore, Sergon Building Consultants engaged Cornell Engineers and obtained a structural engineers report of the property dated 17 October 2016 (the Cornell report). The Cornell report indicates that there remain significant issues of defective work at the property. The Cornell report states that:

Rectification work has already been attempted by installing strip footings between some pile caps. However as-constructed beams are inadequate in that they have not been installed throughout the entire building and have not addressed the issue of the incorrectly positioned base plates.

This confirms the position that the defective works were not rectified.

  1. [38]
    The QBCC submit that the Form 15 prepared by Mr Battacharya dated 6 July 2016 is a compliance certificate for building design or specification, and is in relation to concrete edge beams and internal beams only. It submits that the form does not purport to certify all of the defective work undertaken by the builder or the piers.[17]
  2. [39]
    The Form 15 prepared by Mr Battacharya provides as follows:

Items covered by this certificate:

  1. Reinforced concrete edge beams on ground.
  2. Reinforced concrete internal beams on ground.

Concrete piers and stumps are already existing on site and are not covered by this certificate.

Also the Superstructure is existing and is not covered by this certificate.

  1. [40]
    An engineers report was obtained by the owners from Booth Engineers. In his report dated 29 August 2016, Mr Rebibou noted that an engineer from that office had carried out an inspection of the property on 24 August 2016. He described the history as follows:[18]

Following construction, the owners identified significant variations in the ‘as constructed footings’ by the builder likely the result of inaccurate placement of the original screw piers as well as inaccurate lengths of SHGS posts. As such, posts across the footing system had evidently ‘missed’ the actual location of the screw piers and in many instances were too short. Photos supplied to this office clearly show posts too short and inadequately connected to screw pier caps, with eccentricity and inadequate construction details throughout.

  1. [41]
    Mr Rebibou noted that a rectification design appeared to have been prepared by Mr Bhattacharya who issued new design plans dated July 2016 for footings, and that generally the engineer proposed to construct additional footing beams connecting individual post/pier locations, presumably so as to counter the imposed eccentric loads on the existing screw piers. He noted as to implementation of that design:[19]

Based on our site observations and the Form 16 inspection certificate issued, only a small portion of proposed footing beams appears to have been installed, contrary to the original design, This office was also advised by the owners that the inspecting engineer issuing the Form 16 does not appear to have visited the site and may have issued his certificate based on photographs rather than site inspections. Regardless, the design was not completed, leaving inadequate site drainage and inadequate building details in place.

Photos taken during our inspection confirm that numerous posts are still eccentric to screw pier caps with inadequate details, also much too high above the screw pier caps and filled excessively and in a non tradesperson like fashion. The standard of workmanship is grossly inadequate and the details do not comply with engineering designs for the property.

  1. [42]
    Mr Rebibou recommended that the builder consult with their engineer to provide suitable rectification for the defects, making sure that any subsequent rectifications cater for the actual current details used and are suitably inspected and certified during the works.
  2. [43]
    A Structural Report dated 17 October 2016 was prepared for Sergon by Cornell Engineers. The report noted as to the rectification work as to the posts:[20]

Rectification work has already been attempted by installing strip footings between some pile caps. However the as-constructed beams are inadequate in that they have not been installed throughout the entire building and have not addressed the issue of the incorrectly positioned base plates.

Discussion

  1. [44]
    The QBCC submit that the builder has not constructed the piers in accordance with the DEQ Engineer’s plans (the initial plans) and rectification work undertaken by the builder has not been successful in that work has been undertaken to seven piers only, which is not in accordance with the Notice of Intention to Terminate which was given by the owners, or with the Morgan report.[21]
  2. [45]
    The QBCC submit in conclusion that there has been no reasonable explanation for the delay, that the application is ‘doomed to failure on the merits, and should not proceed, and that the applications for Extension of Time and the Review Application should be dismissed.’[22]
  3. [46]
    The builder submits that the delay is ‘mere weeks’ and it is reasonably explained by the builder’s desire to seek legal advice and information from its subcontractors which the Christmas shutdown ‘understandably and unavoidably intruded upon.’[23]
  4. [47]
    The builder submits in conclusion that:[24]

[20] In all the circumstances, the interests of justice are not served by depriving the Applicant of its right to external review. It is appropriate that the Applicant be granted the relief that it seeks.

  1. [48]
    There have clearly been significant shortcomings in the conduct of the works, and in the conduct of the review proceedings by the builder.
  2. [49]
    The works in relation to the posts were conducted in a very poor manner. It is almost beyond belief that a registered builder would perform stumping works in such an obviously defective manner. One look at the photos of the work, or inspection of the site, would leave any informed observer incredulous and dismayed. The posts are clearly not properly positioned on and secured to the concrete pads, and the work has been done in an amateurish and obviously defective way.
  3. [50]
    The unanimous opinion of all three engineers who have reported on the work is that the posts were not installed in a proper and workmanlike way. Their opinions are consistent and unequivocal.
  4. [51]
    The attempted rectification by the builder, by constructing concrete bond beams between the pads, was wholly unsatisfactory and ineffective. Again, it is apparent that the bond beams have been done in a poor and amateurish manner, and the evidence is that the beams were not completed between all posts.
  5. [52]
    I do not accept that the Form 16 issued by Mr Bhattacharya does effect to certify that the rectification works conducted by the builder were performed in a satisfactory manner. The Form 16 confines its scope on its face, and none of the other engineers who have viewed that documentation accept that it has the effect that the builder submits it has.
  6. [53]
    Further, I have strong reservations as to the efficacy of the rectification proposed by Mr Bhattacharya. There is strong suggestion that Mr Bhattacharya worked only from photographs and did not visit the site. The other engineers have not endorsed his proposal. I am not satisfied that the rectifications proposed by Mr Bhattacharya would be sufficient to make the structure sound and acceptable, even if they were constructed in a proper manner.
  7. [54]
    The owners elected to terminate the Contract after giving the builder notice of their intention to do so. The termination was based upon the failure of the builder to rectify the defective post work.
  8. [55]
    The Contract was a ‘Master Builders Residential Building Contract – Level 2. Version: RBC-L2 v07-2015.1’. Contractor’s Warranties are provided in Cause 10.1 as follows:

10.1 Warranties relating to the carrying out of the works

The Contractor warrants that the Contractor will carry out the works:

  1. (a)
    In an appropriate and skilful way;
  2. (b)
    With reasonable care and skill;
  3. (c)
    In accordance with the Plans and Specifications;
  4. (d)
    With reasonable diligence; and
  5. (e)
    In accordance with all relevant laws and legal requirements including, for example, the Building Act 1975.
  1. [56]
    The owner’s rights to terminate the Contract are provided for in clause 20 of the Contract. These include:

20.1 Owner’s right to give notice of intention to terminate contract

If the contractor:

  1. (a)
    Fails to proceed with the works with due diligence or in a competent manner;

Or

  1. (c)
    Refuses or persistently neglects to remove or remedy defective work or improper materials so that the progress of the works is significantly, adversely affected;

Or

  1. (f)
    is otherwise in substantial breach of this Contract.
  1. [57]
    A failure of the builder to carry out the works in an appropriate and skilful way, and with reasonable care and skill, would breach the warranty and constitute a substantial breach of the Contract.
  2. [58]
    The stumping works were not carried in an appropriate and skilful way, and with reasonable care and skill, as noted by the engineers. This constituted a substantial breach of the contract.
  3. [59]
    The builder’s solicitors contended in correspondence that the builder had no specific obligation under the contract to immediately remedy any defective work once they became aware of it, or when required by the owners, and could have remedied the work in their own time prior to practical completion.[25]
  4. [60]
    I do not accept that suggestion. The progress of the works should have been significantly and adversely affected by the need to rectify the stumps. The stumping works are of core structural significance. No further works should have been conducted whilst the building was in an unsecured and potentially dangerous state, with the risk of damage occurring to further new work which was being performed. A major structural defect such as the stumps should have been addressed as soon as possible, and before further work was conducted.
  5. [61]
    I consider that the failure to rectify the defective stumps, once the defects were identified, was a substantial breach of the contract. The substantial breaches of the Contract gave the owners the right to terminate the Contract.
  6. [62]
    I consider that the owners were justified in terminating the Contract on 19 July 2016. I agree with the opinion of Mr Pacey that the Contract was properly terminated. I do not consider that the application to review by the builder has any reasonable prospect of success.
  7. [63]
    The builder has explained its failure to institute review proceedings as being due to the intervention of holidays. I do not accept that the builder has shown that the holiday period did in fact impede his ability to obtain legal advice and to pursue a review within time.
  8. [64]
    The builder has displayed no evidence of appreciating the significance of the decision made by Mr Pacey, and of treating the matter with the urgency which it required. In the final event, the Queensland Home Warranty Scheme has paid out the maximum amount allowable under the policy of $200,000.00. This raises the likelihood that the actual cost of rectification to the owners was higher than that.
  9. [65]
    If Mr Harper had made a prompt inquiry of his Solicitor’s office when he received the Notice on 22 December 2016, he would almost certainly have been advised, if not in person, then very likely by a telephone answering message which is a standard practice, that the Solicitors office was closed from that day, only until 9 January 2017.
  10. [66]
    Even if Mr Harper had been unable to contact the solicitor on 22 December 2016, he could have made genuine attempts early in the New Year to contact the Solicitor’s office. That office had in fact been open again for 9 days before Mr Harper contacted them on 18 January 2017.
  11. [67]
    Once Mr Harper did contact his solicitor’s office, a further nine days passed until he had an appointment with his Solicitor. Mr Harper’s explanation that he needed to prepare materials to confer with his solicitor is unconvincing, as he had notice of the decision for almost a month by that time, and could have been preparing materials in that time.
  12. [68]
    I am not satisfied as to the application for extension of time that:
    1. The builder has demonstrated proper diligence in seeking to arrange for a review of the decision; or that
    2. The builder has given a reasonable explanation of the delay in filing the application for review; or that
    3. The substantive application has any reasonable prospect of success.
  13. [69]
    As I am not satisfied as to these considerations, I do not consider that an extension of time should be granted, and I dismiss the application for an extension of time to file the Review application.
  14. [70]
    The application for extension of time having been dismissed, the application to Review cannot proceed, and I dismiss the application to Review that has been filed.

Footnotes

[1] QBCC Review Notice, 22 December 2016, 4.

[2] Application filed 3 March 2017, Schedule 1.

[3] [2010] QCATA 68.

[4] Ibid, [4] and [5].

[5] [2012] QCATA 24.

[6] Ibid, [9].

[7] Written Submissions for the Applicant filed 11 April 2017, [12].

[8] Respondents submissions on the application to extend the time limit fixed for the start of the proceeding, filed 8 June 2017, [35].

[9] Pro-Check Property Inspection Report 12 April 2016, 6 [2.1].

[10] Morgan Consulting Engineers Report 8 June 2016, 95 [2.2].

[11] Ibid, 3 [4.0].

[12] Schedule 2 to Application to Review filed 3 March 2017, [6].

[13] Ibid, [8].

[14] Ibid, [11].

[15] Ibid, [12].

[16] Review Notice 22 December 2016, 3.

[17] Respondents submissions on the application to extend the time limit fixed for the start of the proceeding, filed 8 June 2017, [42 (a)].

[18] Booth Engineers and Associates Pty Ltd report 29 August 2016, 2 [2.0].

[19] Booth Engineers and Associates Pty Ltd report 29 August 2016, 3 [2.0].

[20] Cornell Engineers report 17 October 2016, 13.

[21] Respondents submissions on the application to extend the time limit fixed for the start of the proceeding, filed 8 June 2017, [43].

[22] Respondents submissions on the application to extend the time limit fixed for the start of the proceeding, filed 8 June 2017, [45] – [47].

[23] Written Submissions for the Applicant filed 11 April 2017, [18].

[24] Written Submissions for the Applicant filed 11 April 2017, [20].

[25] Letter from Lang Hemming and Hall, Solicitors, to Skelton Law, 27 July 2016, [8.1.3] and [8.1.4].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Harper Property Builders Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Harper Property Builders Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

  • MNC:

    [2017] QCAT 252

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    A/Senior Member Paratz

  • Date:

    21 Jul 2017

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Benson v Ware [2012] QCATA 24
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QCATA 24
Cite 2 - [2012] QCATA 24
Cite 3 - [2012] QCATA 24
McClintock v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QCATA 68
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2010] QCATA 68
Cite 2 - [2010] QCATA 68
Cite 3 - [2010] QCATA 68

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.