Stevens v Queensland Building and Construction Commission
[2020] QCAT 432
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
- Stevens v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2020] QCAT 432
- Add to List
Stevens v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2020] QCAT 432
Stevens v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2020] QCAT 432
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Stevens v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2020] QCAT 432 |
PARTIES: | LEE GRANT STEVENS (applicant) |
v | |
QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION (respondent) | |
APPLICATION NO/S: | GAR122-20 |
MATTER TYPE: | General administrative review matters |
DELIVERED ON: | 9 November 2020 |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Cranwell |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – application to extend time for leave to appeal PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – TIME, EXTENSION AND ABRIDGMENT – where the applicant filed an application to review a decision out of time – where the applicant filed an application for an extension of time – whether application for an extension of time should be granted Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 39A Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 33, s 61 Cardillo v Queensland Building Services Authority [2011] QCAT 574 Coppens v Water Wise Design Pty Ltd [2014] QCATA 309 Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman & Anor [2011] QCAT 229 Jensen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2017] QCAT 232 |
REPRESENTATION: | |
Applicant: | Self-represented |
Respondent: | HWL Ebsworth |
APPEARANCES: | This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld). |
REASONS FOR DECISION
- [1]On 10 January 2020, the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) decided to issue a direction to rectify to Mr Stevens.
- [2]The letter advising Mr Stevens of this decision contained the following statement:
You have the right to have this decision externally reviewed in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). An external review application must be lodged with QCAT within 28 days of receiving this decision.
- [3]I note that s 33 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) provides that an application for the review of a reviewable decision must be made within 28 days of, relevantly, the day the applicant is notified of the decision.
- [4]The effect of s 39A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) is that the decision letter is taken to have been received ‘at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post, unless the contrary is proved’. In the case of a regular letter, that is three to four business days, which in this case was by 16 January 2020.
- [5]The application for review was therefore required to be made by
13 February 2020. - [6]On 2 April 2020, Mr Stevens filed an application to review the decision with the Tribunal. The application was filed out of time, so Mr Stevens subsequently filed an application for an extension of time on 3 June 2020.
- [7]Section 61 of the QCAT Act gives the Tribunal power to extend a time limit fixed for the start of a proceeding. The Tribunal cannot extend time if to do so would cause prejudice or detriment to a party or potential party to a proceeding, not able to be remedied by an appropriate order for costs or damages.
- [8]The relevant factors to be considered by the Tribunal in exercising its discretion to grant an extension of time were summarised in Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman & Anor:[1]
- (a)Whether a satisfactory explanation (or ‘good reason’) is shown to account for the delay.
- (b)The strength of the case the applicant wishes to bring (assuming it is possible for some view on this to be formed on the preliminary material).
- (c)Prejudice to adverse parties.
- (d)Length of the delay, noting that a short delay is usually easier to excuse than a lengthy one.
- (e)Overall, whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension. This usually calls for some analysis of the above factors considered in combination.
- (a)
- [9]
Each party is aware of the required time limits and the fair approach is to require that limits be complied with unless there is a compelling reason (such as those listed above) to the contrary. This is fair for all parties. Compliance with time limits also will lead to disposition of matters in the most efficient and quick way. Compliance with time limits is also consistent with the public interest in finality of litigation ...
Reason for the delay
- [10]In his application to extend time, Mr Stevens simply stated that he wanted to ‘advise the QBCC that I would like to do the rectification work’.
- [11]In an attachment, Mr Stevens went on to state:
I had a previous inspection of the floor at the end of April 2020 and had noticed that there is more splits and cracks to majority of the floor, which I agree the floor now needs to be replaced. I would like the opportunity to complete this rectification work as the floor was never not installed to Australian standards and that the splits/cracks in the boards that have occurred are from edge bonding not workmanship as previously stated and I can do this rectification work for around 50% less than what the qbcc home warranty insurance has quoted.
- [12]I am unable to discern from Mr Stevens’ statements an explanation for his delay in lodging the application for review with the Tribunal following the QBCC’s decision.
Length of delay
- [13]Mr Stevens delayed approximately six weeks, from 13 February 2020 to 2 April 2020, before filing his application with the Tribunal. In the context of a 28 day time limit, I am of the view that this is a considerable delay.
The strength of the case
- [14]I am not in a position on this application to make findings on the issues for determination in the substantive review should the extension of time be granted. However, I note that Mr Stevens’ statements in his application to extend time now appear to accept the floor is defective and requires replacement.
Prejudice to adverse parties
- [15]The QBCC has not pointed to any specific prejudice to it in its submissions.
Interests of justice
- [16]The interests of justice do not favour an extension. As Thomas J noted in Coppens,[3] finality in litigation is highly desirable. The Tribunal’s obligation under s 3(b) of the QCAT Act to deal with matters fairly, economically and quickly would not be achieved by allowing Mr Stevens to file this application after a considerable delay.
Conclusion
- [17]The absence of prejudice to the QBCC points in favour of extending the time for Mr Stevens to apply for review of the exclusion decision.
- [18]However, I am of the view that these factors are outweighed by the interests of justice, the likely lack of merit to Mr Stevens’s case, and the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay. As Member Howe observed in Cardillo v Queensland Building Services Authority, ‘it has … been said that it is a precondition to the exercise of discretion in the applicant's favour that the applicant for extension show an acceptable explanation of the delay’.[4] Mr Stevens has made no attempt to do this.
- [19]The application for an extension of time is refused. The application to review a decision is therefore dismissed.