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

Goldfield Projects Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2019] QCAT 65

Goldfield Projects Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2019] QCAT 65

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Goldfield Projects Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2019] QCAT 65

PARTIES:

GOLDFIELD PROJECTS PTY LTD

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR213-15

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

21 February 2019

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Cranwell

ORDERS:

  1. The time for compliance with Direction 1 of Directions dated 25 October 2018 is extended to 4:00 pm on 30 January 2019.
  2. The time for compliance with Direction 2 of Directions dated 25 October 2018 is extended to 4:00 pm on 28 February 2019.
  3. The application for miscellaneous matters filed on 17 January 2019 is otherwise dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

 

 

 

 

 

 

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – procedure – where applicant seeks additional time to file evidence – where parties directed to file expert evidence

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 97

Romark Design Constructions Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QCAT 455

REPRESENTATION:

 

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

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. [1]
    On 25 October 2018, Senior Member Aughterson directed:

1. Goldfield Projects must file in the tribunal two (2) copies and give to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission one (1) copy of any statements of evidence, including their experts (sic) report upon which they wish to rely at the hearing, by 4:00 pm on 21 January 2019.

2. The Queensland Building and Construction Commission may file in the tribunal two (2) copies of and give to Goldfield Projects Pty Ltd of any further statements of evidence upon which they wish to rely at the hearing, by 4:00 pm on 18 February 2019.

3. The application will be listed for a further directions hearing in Brisbane not before 25 February 2019.

  1. [2]
    On 17 January 2019, Goldfield Projects Pty Ltd (Goldfield) filed an application for miscellaneous matters seeking the following directions:

1) Extension of time: Item 1 of the direction dated 25 October 2018 for the applicant to file documents extend (sic) by 1 weeks (sic) to 4:00 on 28th January 2019.

2) Item 1 of direction dated 25 October 2018 does not require the applicant to file in the expert evidence as the way of appoint expert does not comply with QCAT Practice direction No. 4 of 2009.

3) The Applicant proposes a call for expert evidence.  The Applicant request the Tribunal to have a directions hearing for the appointment of expert according to QCAT Practice Direction No 4 of 2009.

a) The Applicant proposes:

i) 1 expert for each party (however, QBCC are not permitted to use QBCC contractors or staff due to conflict of interest);

ii) The expert must be specialised in building defects and rectification;

iii) The issue to be address (sic) is the scope of work for rectification;

b) The Applicant requests the tribunal to:

 i) Make the order for the above item 3;

ii) Organise a conclave meeting with the experts of both parties convened by a Member or an Adjudicator (preferable) (refer to items 5 of Practice Direction No 4);

iii) Organise/order a site access for the experts to assess the site in order to gather enough information to produce an informed report prior to the conclave meeting as per 6(b) of the Practice Direction No 4. Should a site meeting be denied for whatever reason, the Tribunal must provide the Applicant the “Benefit of doubt”.

iv) List a due date for a joint report.

4) The Applicant requests a declaration from the Tribunal stating that Member Traves’ decision to widen the “scope of work” for the rectification work to include replacement of the waterproofing membrane in the bathroom in GAR 460-13 is void and that the QBCC and the Tribunal will not rely on this prejudgment.

  1. [3]
    On 22 January 2019, I made directions for the application for miscellaneous matters to be served on the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) by 31 January 2019, and provided the QBCC with an opportunity to file submissions by 14 February 2019.  No submissions were filed by the QBCC.
  2. [4]
    I am prepared to extend the time for compliance with direction 1 as requested by Goldfield.  I will extend that time to 30 January 2019, being the date upon which Goldfield in fact filed its evidence in this matter.
  3. [5]
    As a consequence, I will also extend the time for compliance with direction 2 until 28 February 2019, in order to give the QBCC an adequate opportunity to respond.
  4. [6]
    Senior Member Aughterson directed Goldfield to file any expert evidence by a particular date.  There is nothing inconsistent with this direction and Practice Direction No 4 of 2009.  In any event, paragraph 1 of the practice direction indicates that it applies ‘unless the tribunal orders otherwise’.
  5. [7]
    The QBCC have yet to lodge any evidence in reply, which may potentially include expert evidence.  In the circumstances of this case, I consider it appropriate to wait until all of the expert evidence is before the Tribunal before considering making directions regarding a conclave.  It is inappropriate for me to make directions limiting the QBCC’s choice of expert should it choose to engage one.
  6. [8]
    In Romark Design Constructions Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission,[1] I made observations on the powers of the Tribunal to order entry onto a property by an expert.  Goldfield has not properly sought to engage the Tribunal’s powers under s 97 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld).  In any event, before exercising those powers, I would require evidence that Goldfield has sought permission to enter the property and that the owner had refused permission.  No such evidence has been provided.
  7. [9]
    I do not have power in these proceedings to declare that a decision made by another member of the Tribunal in another proceedings is void.

Footnotes

[1][2018] QCAT 455.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Goldfield Projects Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Goldfield Projects Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

  • MNC:

    [2019] QCAT 65

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Cranwell

  • Date:

    21 Feb 2019

Appeal Status

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

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.