Jorg v Queensland Building and Construction Commission
[2020] QCAT 528
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
- Jorg v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2020] QCAT 528
- Add to List
Jorg v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2020] QCAT 528
Jorg v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2020] QCAT 528
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Jorg & Anor v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2020] QCAT 528 |
PARTIES: | Franz Jorg christina jorg (applicants) v queensland building and construction commission (respondent) |
APPLICATION NO/S: | GAR063-19 and GAR085-19 |
MATTER TYPE: | General administrative review matters |
DELIVERED ON: | 14 April 2020 |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Cranwell |
ORDERS: | The applications for review in proceedings GAR063-19 and GAR085-19 are dismissed. |
CATCHWORDS: | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – whether direction to rectify can be issued – whether application should be struck out Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 72A, s 86A, s 86C, s 86E, s 87 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 24 |
REPRESENTATION: | |
Applicant: | Self-represented |
Respondent: | S Tabaiwalu |
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
Chronology
- [1]On 11 July 2012, a certificate of practical completion was signed in respect of property owned by Mr and Mrs Jorg at 245 Hovard Road, Bald Knob.
- [2]On 19 February 2018, Mr and Mrs Jorg lodged a complaint form with the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (‘QBCC’) (‘the first complaint’). The first complaint alleged defects at Mr and Mrs Jorg’s property relating to internal doors.
- [3]On 26 March 2018, Mr and Mrs Jorg lodged a complaint form with the QBCC (‘the second complaint’). The second complaint alleged defects at Mr and Mrs Jorg’s property relating to the windows.
- [4]On 11 December 2018, the QBCC decided not to issue directions to rectify in respect of the second complaint.
- [5]On 14 December 2018, the QBCC decided not to issue a direction to rectify in respect of the first complaint.
- [6]On 7 January 2019, Mr and Mrs Jorg requested an internal review of the QBCC’s decision in respect of the second complaint.
- [7]On 9 January 2019, Mr and Mrs Jorg requested an internal review of the QBCC’s decisions in respect of the first complaint.
- [8]On 11 January 2019, the period of six years and six months from the date of practical completion expired.
- [9]On 17 January 2019, the QBCC made an internal review decision in respect of the second complaint, advising that it was unable to issue a direction to rectify as more than six years and six months had passed since the work was completed.
- [10]On 6 February 2019, the QBCC made an internal review decision in respect of the first complaint, advising that it was unable to issue a direction to rectify as more than six years and six months had passed since the work was completed.
- [11]On 4 March 2019, Mr and Mrs Jorg lodged an application for review with the Tribunal in respect of the second complaint, being proceedings GAR063-19.
- [12]On 15 March 2019, Mr and Mrs Jorg lodged an application for review with the Tribunal in respect of the first complaint, being proceedings GAR085-19.
- [13]On 13 June 2019, the QBCC lodged applications for miscellaneous matters seeking to have both proceedings struck out.
Relevant legislation
- [14]Sub-section 72A(4) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (‘QBCC Act’) provides:
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.
- [15]Section 24 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) relevantly provides:
(1) In a proceeding for a review of a reviewable decision, the tribunal may—
(a) confirm or amend the decision; or
(b) set aside the decision and substitute its own decision; or
(c) set aside the decision and return the matter for reconsideration to the decision-maker for the decision, with the directions the tribunal considers appropriate.
(2) The tribunal’s decision under subsection (1)(a) or (b) for a reviewable decision—
(a) is taken to be a decision of the decision-maker for the reviewable decision except for the tribunal’s review jurisdiction or an appeal under part 8; and
(b) subject to any contrary order of the tribunal, has effect from when the reviewable decision takes or took effect.
[Emphasis added]
Consideration
- [16]Mr and Mrs Jorg had two options open to them when they received the original decisions:
- (a)they could have applied for external review of the original decisions by the Tribunal pursuant to s 87 of the QBCC Act; or
- (b)they could have applied for internal review of the original decisions by the QBCC pursuant to s 86A(1) of the QBCC Act.
- (a)
- [17]Had Mr and Mrs Jorg chosen the first option, the reviewable decisions before the Tribunal would have been the original decisions pursuant to s 86E(a) of the QBCC Act. Those decisions were made within the six year and six month period. Pursuant to s 24(2)(b) of the QCAT Act, the Tribunal’s decisions on the reviews would have effect from within the six year and six month period.
- [18]Instead, Mr and Mrs Jorg chose the second option. The effect of having sought internal review is that the reviewable decisions before the Tribunal are the internal review decisions pursuant to s 86E(b) of the QBCC Act. The internal review decisions have effect ‘as if the reviewable decision the subject of the application had not been made’ pursuant to s 86C(1). Those decisions were made after the expiry of the six year and six month period. Pursuant to s 24(2)(b) of the QCAT Act, the Tribunal’s decisions on the reviews would impermissibly take effect after the expiry of the six year and six month period.
- [19]I note that s 24(2)(b) of the QCAT Act is expressed to be ‘subject to any contrary order of the tribunal’. It would be open to the Tribunal to order that its decision take effect from a date within the six year and six month period.
- [20]I am mindful that it took the QBCC nine months and 24 days to make its original decision on the first complaint, and eight months and 15 days to make its original decision on the second complaint. Had the QBCC made its original decisions a matter of days earlier, the 28-day period for making the internal review decisions pursuant to s 86C(2)(a) would have expired within the six year and six month period.
- [21]However, I am of the view that it would not be appropriate to make an order to the contrary pursuant to s 24(2)(b) of the QCAT Act in these cases. It seems to me that, by choosing to pursue an internal review rather than directly pursuing an external review, Mr and Mrs Jorg (and not the QBCC) are the authors of their own difficulties in relation to s 72A(4). For completeness, I note that there may be other circumstances in which a delay by the QBCC in making an original decision would warrant the making of an order giving effect to the Tribunal’s decision from an earlier date within the six year and six month period.
- [22]In the present circumstances, the Tribunal cannot now issue a direction to rectify. The applications for review filed in proceedings GAR063-19 and GAR085-19 are therefore dismissed.