Haimes v Queensland Building and Construction Commission
[2018] QCAT 361
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Haimes v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2018] QCAT 361
- Add to List
Haimes v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2018] QCAT 361
Haimes v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2018] QCAT 361
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Haimes v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QCAT 361 |
PARTIES: | LUKE HAIMES (applicant) |
| v |
| QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION (respondent) |
APPLICATION NO/S: | GAR217-18 |
MATTER TYPE: | General administrative review matters |
DELIVERED ON: | 15 October 2018 |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Cranwell |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE OR TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – SUMMARY DISPOSAL – absence of jurisdiction – application dismissed on basis that it is misconceived Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 86, s 86F Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 47, s 61 Eco-Builder Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QCAT 59 Queensland Building and Construction Commission v Watkins [2014] QCA 172 Sunup Solar Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2015] QCAT 435 |
REPRESENTATION: |
|
Applicant: | All Building Law |
Respondent: | N Thirumoorthi |
APPEARANCES: |
|
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld). | |
REASONS FOR DECISION
- [1]On 22 May 2018, the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (‘the QBCC’) made a decision about a scope of works to be undertaken under the statutory insurance scheme to complete tribunal work.
- [2]On 29 June 2018, Mr Haimes filed an application to review a decision with the Tribunal. In that application, he stated that he received the QBCC decision on 22 May 2018.
- [3]On 25 July 2018, Mr Haimes filed an application to extend time.
- [4]Division 3 of Part 7 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) deals with review proceedings.
- [5]Subdivision 1 deals with internal review. Section 86 sets out what decisions of the QBCC are reviewable:
Reviewable decisions
- Each of the following decisions of the commission under this Act is a reviewable decision –
…
- a decision about the scope of works to be undertaken under the statutory insurance scheme to rectify or complete tribunal work; …
- [6]Subdivision 2 deals with external review, which is to say review by the Tribunal. Section 86F sets out what decisions of the QBCC are not externally reviewable:
Decisions that are not reviewable decisions
- The following decisions of the commission under this Act are not reviewable decisions under this subdivision –
…
- a decision about the scope of works to be undertaken under the statutory insurance scheme to rectify or complete tribunal work if 28 days have elapsed since the decision was served on the building contractor and the contractor has not, within that time, applied to the tribunal for a review of the decision.
- [7]The effect of these provisions is to impose a 28 day time limit on external review which does not apply to internal review.
- [8]It has been held in numerous cases that the power in s 61 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘the QCAT Act’) cannot be used to extend the 28 day time limited imposed by s 86F(1)(c).[1] The application to extend time must therefore be dismissed.
- [9]It is simply the case that the 28 day time limit ended on 19 June 2018. Mr Haimes did not file his application to review a decision until 10 days later. In those circumstances, the decision is not reviewable by the Tribunal.
- [10]The application to review a decision is dismissed pursuant to s 47(1)(a) of the QCAT Act on the basis that it is misconceived.
Footnotes
[1] See, eg, Sunup Solar Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2015] QCAT 435, [61]; Queensland Building and Construction Commission v Watkins [2014] QCA 172, [16]; Eco-Builder Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QCAT 59, [18].