Wells v Queensland Building and Construction Commission
[2018] QCAT 376
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
- Wells v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2018] QCAT 376
- Add to List
Wells v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2018] QCAT 376
Wells v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2018] QCAT 376
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Wells v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QCAT 376 |
PARTIES: | DAVID KEITH WELLS (applicant) |
| v |
| QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION (respondent) |
APPLICATION NO/S: | GAR258-18 |
MATTER TYPE: | General administrative review matters |
DELIVERED ON: | 9 November 2018 |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Cranwell |
ORDERS: | The application for miscellaneous matters filed on |
CATCHWORDS: | PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – BUILDERS – STATUTORY POWER TO REQUIRE RECTIFICATION OF DEFECTIVE OR INCOMPLETE BUILDING WORK – whether statutory time limit expired Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 72A Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20 Coral Homes (Qld) Pty Ltd v Queensland Building Services Authority (No 2) [2012] QCATA 242 McNab Constructions Australia Pty Ltd v Queensland Building Services Authority [2012] QCAT 681 |
REPRESENTATION: |
|
Applicant: | Self-represented |
Respondent: | E Ward |
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 20 July 2018, the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (‘the QBCC’) decided not to issue a direction to rectify in respect of a gas leak at a property owned by Mr Wells.
- [2]On 26 July 2018, Mr Wells filed an application to review the QBCC’s decision.
- [3]On 19 September 2018, the QBCC filed an application for miscellaneous matters seeking to have the review application struck out.
- [4]Section 72A(4) of the Queensland Building and Construction Industry Act 1991 (Qld) (‘the QBCC Act’) imposes a time limit on when a direction to rectify may be issued:
A direction to rectify or remedy cannot be given more than 6 years and 6 months after the building work to which the direction relates was completed or left in an incomplete state unless the tribunal is satisfied, on application by the commission, that there is in the circumstances of a particular case sufficient reason for extending the time for giving the direction and extends the time accordingly.
- [5]The QBCC has not made an application to the Tribunal to extend the 6 year and 6 month time limit.
- [6]A number of dates have been put forward as the date upon which the relevant building work was completed:
- (a)1 December 2011, being the date the Form 21 Final inspection certificate was issued;
- (b)2 December 2011, being the date of an invoice issued by the builder in respect of a number of variations;
- (c)14 December 2011, being the date stated in the Taxshield Property Depreciation Schedule;
- (d)3 February 2012, being the installation date stated on the gas compliance plate.
- (a)
- [7]
- [8]If the date of completion of the building work was 1 December 2011, 2 December 2011 or 14 December 2011, it is clear that the QBCC could not have issued a direction to rectify as more than 6 years and 6 months had elapsed as at the date of its decision on 20 July 2018. However, if the date of completion was 3 February 2012, the QBCC would still have been within the time limit in s 72A(4) of the QBCC Act.
- [9]The outcome of the review application therefore turns, at least in part, on whether the date of completion was in December 2011 or on 3 February 2012. This is a question of fact, which it is appropriate to determine after a hearing rather an on an interlocutory basis.
- [10]The strike out application is dismissed.