Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2021
  4. Hayward v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2021] QCAT 180

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

Hayward v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2021] QCAT 180

Hayward v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2021] QCAT 180

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Hayward v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCAT 180

PARTIES:

JOHn HAYWARD

 

(applicant)

 

v

 

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

 

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR074-19

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

11 May 2021

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Kent

ORDERS:

  1. The application for miscellaneous matters (dated 13 December 2019) is granted and the application for review filed by John Hayward on 19 February 2019 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – BUILDERS – STATUTORY INSURANCE SCHEME – where a claim was purported to be made upon the Queensland Home Warranty Scheme out of time and not in the prescribed format – residential construction – where the claim was disallowed

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) s 71C, s 72(5)

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2013 (Qld) Sch2C s 15 and s 16

Walker v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCAT 32

APPEARANCES &

REPRESENTATION:

 
 

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]
    This is an application to review a decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) made on 22 January 2019 to disallow a claim made under the Queensland Home Warranty Scheme.
  2. [2]
    The QBCC filed an application on 13 December 2019 to dismiss or strike out the application to review a decision. These reasons deal with this interim application.

Applicant’s Submissions

  1. [3]
    The applicant entered a contract with the builder Mr. Walker (the builder) in April 2017.  Practical completion of the construction of Mr Hayward’s home was reached on or about 12 October 2017. In the final phases of construction, disputes about aspects of the finish led to a significant breakdown in that relationship.
  2. [4]
    The applicant submits that on 27 September 2017, at 1:51pm he contacted the QBCC through the QBCC contact centre.
  3. [5]
    On 27 November 2017 Mr Hayward again called the QBCC contact centre. He submitted that:
    1. (a)
      The QBCC advised that there was no reason to send anything to the QBCC as no action could be taken until the builder had been provided with the required opportunity to complete rectification.
  4. [6]
    On 11 April 2018, at 12:47 pm Mr Hayward contacted the QBCC call centre for advice. He says he was given advice by the staff member at the call centre; he said this amounted to him being advised by the QBCC that it was acceptable to agree to an extension of anything up to one year for the rectifications.
  5. [7]
    He said that he was not told at this time that there was a need for him to provide details of the remaining defects to the QBCC for the purposes of the Home Warranty Scheme.
  6. [8]
    Mr Hayward relies upon this phone call of 11 April 2018 as the submission of his claim under the Home Warranty Scheme. He maintains that the claim does not need to be in writing or in a prescribed form.
  7. [9]
    Mr Hayward objected to the respondent’s 13 December 2019 Application to Dismiss the proceedings. It was his submission that the application relies entirely on the references in the QBCC Insurance Policy and related regulations and his perceived failure to comply with the statutory time limit.
  8. [10]
    He submitted that even though Clause 6.l (b) of the BSA Insurance Policy Conditions states that claims will be in writing, the Clause goes on to state that "a claim shall contain such information as BSA may direct." He submitted that as he relied on the advice provided by the QBCC there was no need to provide further details.
  9. [11]
    Mr Hayward’s submissions are that he provided all the information requested of him during 11 April 2018 telephone call. He relies upon this conversation as evidence that he submitted a claim on 11 April and that the claim was submitted via this telephone call.

Respondent’s Submissions

  1. [12]
    In response to the Tribunal’s request for further submissions the QBCC filed further material  and the following is a summary of some of the major points. The QBCC directed the Tribunal to consideration of the relevant legislation, in particular:
    1. (a)
      section 71C of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (QBCC Act) provides:

71C Notice of entitlement to assistance under the statutory insurance scheme
A person claiming to be entitled to assistance under the statutory insurance scheme must give notice of the claim to the commission in compliance with the requirements prescribed by regulation. (emphasis added)

  1. (b)
    section 65, schedule 2C of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2003 (Qld) (QBCC Regulation) provides:

65 Claim for assistance — Act, s 71C

  1. (1)
    This section prescribes the requirements for section 71C of the Act.
  1. (2)
    For a claim for assistance mentioned in section 5 or 7, the notice of the claim must include the following-
  1. (a)
    either —

(i)a copy of the contract for the residential construction work the subject of the claim, including any variations to the contract; or

(ii)if a copy of the contract is not available — written evidence of the existence of a contract for the carrying out of the work, and any variations to the contract;

(b)if the contract for the work is validly terminated as mentioned in section 4(1)(a) — evidence that the contract has been validly terminated;

(c) evidence of all payments made in relation to the work;

(d)a copy of any plans or specifications for the work.

…

(5)For all claims, the notice of the claim must be in writing and include any other information the commission reasonably requires to decide the claim.

  1. [13]
    In relation to the Residential and Commercial Construction Work Complaint Form the QBCC submitted that it is the document contemplated by section 65, schedule 2C of the QBCC Regulation as:
  1. (a)
    it is:
  1. (i)
    in writing as required by section by section 65(5), schedule 2C of the QBCC Regulation; and
  1. (ii)
    includes all of the information reasonably required by the Commission to determine a homeowner's claim (both generally and by reference to section 65(2), schedule 2C of the QBCC Regulation);
  1. (b)
    to not have a single template claim form, prepared and maintained by the Commission, would necessarily result in a large number of claims that do not comply with the requirements of section 65, schedule 2C of the QBCC Regulation being made by homeowners.
  1. [14]
    It was the QBCC’s submission that:
    1. (a)
      Section 65(5), schedule 2C of the QBCC Regulation relevantly states "the notice of claim must... include any other information the commission reasonably requires ... "; and
    2. (b)
      As a notice of claim must be in writing and include the information set out by section 65(2), as well as all other information reasonably required by the Commission (per section 65(5)), the QBCC has prepared a template claim form which all homeowners must complete, so that homeowners are able to comply with the requirements set out in section 65, schedule 2C of the QBCC Regulation.
  2. [15]
    It is for these reasons the QBCC considers that the Residential and Commercial Construction Work Complaint Form is the document by which a homeowner submits a claim.
  3. [16]
    Alternatively, the QBCC submitted that even if the above argument was not accepted it was their contention that, this did not impact on the Strike Out Application as the applicant's case is solely that he made a claim during a telephone conversation with an employee of the QBCC on 27 November 2017.[1]
  4. [17]
    The respondent’s argument was that the language of the section was unequivocal language i.e. (a) section 65(5), schedule 2C of the QBCC Regulation, that a claim must be in writing; and (b) section 65(2), schedule 2C of the QBCC Regulation, that the claim must include the information required by that section.
  5. [18]
    It was the QBCC’s submission that an oral claim, such as the one Mr Hayward relies upon, cannot be a claim for assistance for the purposes of the QBCC Act as it does not comply with the mandatory requirements of the QBCC Regulation.
  6. [19]
    It was submitted that a claim must be in writing (as clearly required by section 65(5), schedule 2C of the QBCC Regulation). Therefore, as Mr Hayward’s claim was not in writing it cannot be compliant.
  7. [20]
    In response to the applicant’s submissions the QBCC submits that it has relied upon the limitations in section 16(3), schedule 2C of the QBCC Regulation. They therefore submit that the QBCC was required to deny the applicant's claim pursuant to section 16(3), schedule 2C of the QBCC Regulation.
  8. [21]
    The QBCC submitted that this was this case as sections 16(1) and (2), schedule 2C of the QBCC Regulation set out the circumstances in which a consumer is entitled to assistance.
  9. [22]
    That assistance is then conditioned by the limitation in section 16(3), schedule 2C of the QBCC Regulation. That is to say, while a consumer may be entitled to assistance by virtue of sections 16(1) and/or (2), no assistance can be given where a claim for that assistance is not received by the QBCC within the times set out in section 16(3), schedule 2C of the QBCC Regulation.
  10. [23]
    It was submitted section 16(2) merely provides that a homeowner is entitled to assistance for non-structural defects within six months of the date the relevant works are completed. A homeowner will, however, lose that entitlement if a claim for assistance is not made within the time set out in section 16(3), schedule 2C of the QBCC Regulation.[2]

Submissions on the telephone conversation of 27 November 2017

  1. [24]
    It was the QBCC’s submission that the applicant’s purported claim made during a telephone conversation with a QBCC employee on 27 November 2017 has not been made in accordance with the requirements of the QBCC Act and Regulation. It therefore could not be considered by the Tribunal as a valid claim for the purposes of the statutory time limits.
  2. [25]
    The applicant's submissions do not impact on the strike out application as the Applicant concedes his complaint was not in writing at all and therefore his purported telephone call to the Commission does not meet the writing requirements of section 65, schedule 2C of the QBCC Regulation.

Submissions on Residential and Commercial Construction Work Complaint Form

  1. [26]
    The QBCC submits that the Residential and Commercial Construction Work Complaint Form is the document by which a homeowner gives notice to the QBCC.
  2. [27]
    The respondent accepted that section 65, schedule 2C of the QBCC Regulation does not include a specific reference to the Residential and Commercial Construction Work Complaint Form; but submitted that the form is the document by which a homeowner gives notice to the QBCC.
  3. [28]
    The respondent did not accept that any statements relied upon by the applicant had been made to their employee at the  call centre.  However, even if the Tribunal did accept such statements were made the QBCC submits that the Tribunal is bound to decide this matter in line with the policy terms contained in schedule 2C of the QBCC Regulation (specifically sections 16(3) and 65, schedule 2C of the QBCC Regulation).
  4. [29]
    The respondent submitted that the  applicant raised several irrelevant matters in his submission. 
  5. [30]
    The respondent submitted that the applicant became aware of the items of alleged defective building work at various times between 17 November 2017 and 29 June 2018.  The complaint which was subsequently assessed as a claim under the statutory insurance claim scheme was made on  8 July 2018. In accordance with the time limit set out in Schedule 2C of the QBCC Regulation any claim made under the statutory insurance scheme for defective building work was required to be made for structural defects by  5 February 2018 and for non-structural defects by 10 May 2018. In the circumstances the written claim made by the applicant on  8 July 2018 was out of time for an application under Schedule 2Csection 16(3)  of the QBCC[3] Regulation. It follows that whether the works were structural or non-structural, the applicant did not make the claim in accordance with the time limits prescribed by the QBCC Regulation.
  6. [31]
    The respondent refused the application on the basis that the applicant was not entitled to claim under the statutory insurance scheme for defective building work because he failed to meet the time limits prescribed by  Schedule 2C, section 16(3) of the QBCC Regulation.
  7. [32]
    The counter argument from the applicant is that he made his claim within time because he had a telephone conversation with a QBCC staff member on 27 November 2017. It  is the applicant’s submission that this meant that he was within time.
  8. [33]
    The Tribunal had to decide whether or not the telephone conversation of 27 November 2017 could be a claim within the meaning of the relevant legislation. The first question to ask is: can a claim be oral and not written. The second question is: does a claim have to be in the prescribed form. If the answer to the first question is ‘yes, it can be oral’ then this second question is live. If the answer to the first question is ‘no, it cannot be oral’ then the second question is not a question for consideration.

Legal Framework

  1. [34]
    The following contains extracts of the relevant provisions governing the making of claims under the Home Warranty  Scheme.
  2. [35]
    The Terms of Cover for the ’s policy of insurance are contained in Schedule 2C the QBCC Regulation (Terms of Cover).
  3. [36]
    Section 15 of the Terms of Cover relevantly states:

15 Assistance for defective work

  1. (1)
    The consumer of the residential construction work is entitled to claim assistance for the reasonable cost of the following work (rectification work) –
  1. (a)
    rectifying the defective work;
  1. (b)
    any other building work reasonably required to be carried out to a relevant building as a consequence of the defective work
  1. [37]
    Section 16 of the Terms of Cover relevantly states:

16 Limit on assistance

…

  1. (3)
    No assistance can be given to the consumer unless the consumer makes a claim mentioned in section 15 –
  1. (a)
    for a structural defect – within 3 months after the day the consumer first becomes aware, or reasonably to have become aware, of the defect in the work; or
  1. (b)
    for another defect – within 7 months after the day the residential work is substantially complete.
  1. [38]
    The QBCC says it was not notified of the defects until lodgement of the Complaint Form was received on 8 July 2018. While I note the applicant’s reasoning for the delay between noticing the complaint items and notifying the QBCC, the Owner’s Terms of Cover do not allow discretion to be applied when considering a claim that was made outside of the timeframes as stated in Schedule 2C section 16(3) of the QBCC Regulation.
  2. [39]
    The applicant submits that his claim is not out of the time limit because it was submitted orally on 27 November 2017. This was submitted to be before the expiration date of the statutory time limits.
  3. [40]
    The question for me is: do I accept that a claim can be made in this oral manner or should I confirm the refusal  of the applicant’s claim for assistance under the statutory insurance scheme.[4] The QBCC submits that the Terms of Cover do not allow a discretion to be applied when considering a claim that is made outside of the time frame stated in section 16(3) and that the Tribunal, standing in the QBCC’s position as decision maker, also has no  power to apply a discretion.
  4. [41]
    As in the case of Walker[5] the QBCC submits that the scheme does not provide unlimited consumer protection to consumers of residential building work.

What is a claim?

  1. [42]
    The QBCC submits that a consumer must give ‘notice’ of a claim under the scheme under section 71C of the QBCC Act, and that the only requirement in the Terms of Cover which prescribes the requirements, is section 65 which provides that the notice of claim must be in writing and include any other information the Commissioner reasonably requires to decide the claim.
  2. [43]
    The QBCC submits that the complaint form is an administrative form and serves the purpose of a ‘claim for assistance’. The Commission’s Residential and Commercial Construction Work Complaint Form (complaint form) is merely an administrative form which allows the Commission, as a large body corporate, to receive and assess the significant number of matters referred to it.
  3. [44]
    The QBCC receives a huge volume of calls each year. A busy call centre is unable to meet the statutory requirements of filling out forms on behalf of the applicant consumers.  Consumers bear the onus to familiarise themselves with the statutory requirements and they also have a responsibility to act in their own best interests and  provide a claim in the format required.
  4. [45]
    I accept the submissions of the QBCC that the application or claim must be in writing and it must contain the information that the Commissioner requires to decide the claim. The reported claim, via telephone on 27 November 2017, does not meet the requirements of the legislation in that it is not in writing; it is oral only, therefore it cannot be a claim in the statutory sense. Therefore, the only claim that meets the requirements of the legislation is the one of  8 July 2018 and by all parties’ agreement in the submissions this is indeed out of the time to make such a claim.
  5. [46]
    I again reference the decision of Walker.[6] There is no specific power relevant to the complaint/claim form; rather, the collection of information by way of the complaint form falls under the Commission’s function to administer the QBCC Act. To that end, the information collected on the complaint form serves a dual purpose of assisting to resolve a dispute between a homeowner and contractor, and to assess whether a homeowner is entitled to a claim under the scheme. Notably, the key dates and amounts contained in the complaint form are utilised throughout the Commission’s assessment process.

Discussion

  1. [47]
    The owner did not submit a written complaint form to the QBCC until 8 July 2018, outside the statutory time limit for making a claim.
  2. [48]
    The reason the owner did not make an earlier complaint to the QBCC  was, in his submission, due to his belief that he had made an oral claim to the QBCC in a telephone call with an employee of the QBCC on 27 November 2017.
  3. [49]
    As in the case of Walker[7] it is acknowledged by the QBCC that there is a consumer protection purpose in the QBCC Act. The QBCC says that its hands are tied as the 2016 amendments to the QBCC Act contain a scope of claim limitation; this amendment imposes strict time limits and it removed a previously held discretion to grant the consumer an extension of time to make a claim.
  4. [50]
    The central issues in this matter are questions of format and time.

The making of a claim

  1. [51]
    The QBCC submitted that a ‘claim’ against the scheme must be in writing and include any other information prescribed by a regulation that the Commission reasonably requires to decide the claim. There does not appear to be any specific form to ‘claim’ against the scheme. (See Walker).[8]
  2. [52]
    The QBCC submitted that the ‘complaint form’, which is the formal notification to the Commission of alleged defective building work, is an administrative form which serves the purpose of being a ‘claim for assistance’ under the scheme.
  3. [53]
    Section 15(1) of the Terms of Cover refers to a consumer being entitled to claim assistance for the reasonable cost of rectification work. Section 16 of the Terms of Cover provides that a claim must be made for a structural defect within three months after the day the consumer first becomes aware, or ought reasonably to have become aware, of the defect in the work.
  4. [54]
    Whilst the submissions of the QBCC are that the complaint form ‘serves the purpose’ of being a ‘claim for assistance’, it is not clear under the Terms of Cover that this is the case. [9]
  5. [55]
    Whilst the applicant submitted that he made  a complaint/claim via the telephone on 27 November 2017, Mr Hayward actually made  no valid attempt to submit a claim until he submitted the form on 8 July 2018.
  6. [56]
    The legislation does not recognise that situation where a consumer makes an oral claim via the call centre of the QBCC.[10]

Power to dismiss under s 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act)

  1. [57]
    Section 47 of the QCAT Act confers on the Tribunal the power to dismiss or strike out proceedings and relevantly provides that:
  1. (1)
    This section applies if the tribunal considers a proceeding or a part of a proceeding is—
  1. (a)
    frivolous, vexatious, or misconceived; or
  1. (b)
    lacking in substance; or
  1. (c)
    otherwise an abuse of process.
  1. (2)
    The tribunal may—
  1. (a)
    if the party who brought the proceeding or part before the tribunal is the applicant for the proceeding, order the proceeding or part be dismissed or struck out; …
  1. [58]
    In the Tribunal case of Murtagh v QBCC,[11] Member Traves noted that:

Pursuant to s 47(2)(a) the tribunal may exercise its discretion to strike out or dismiss a proceeding or part of a proceeding brought by an applicant…

The power should be exercised sparingly so that claims that are groundless or which lack merit are barred. If there is a real question to be tried, then dismissal at an interlocutory stage is not appropriate.

  1. [59]
    Additionally, in the case of Felstead v Bundaberg Homes Pty Ltd,[12] Senior Member Brown noted that:

Section 47(2)(a) empowers the tribunal to strike out or dismiss a proceeding or part of a proceeding brought by an applicant. It requires the exercise of a discretion by the tribunal. In exercising the discretion, it is necessary to consider whether it is either necessary or appropriate to do so in the circumstances...[13]

...The exercise of the discretion to strike out requires a consideration of the factors relevant in an application under UCPR r 171: ensuring that relevant documents filed in the Tribunal disclose a reasonable cause of action or defence, do not prejudice or delay the fair trial of the proceeding, are not unnecessary or scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process.[14]

  1. [60]
    In Beck v Kerry M Ryan Pty Ltd,[15] Senior Member Brown also noted that:

Section 47 of the QCAT Act is, in effect, a summary judgment power. In an application for summary judgment under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) current QCAT President Daubney J found in Elderslie Property Investments No 2 Pty Ltd v Dunn:

... the court needs to be satisfied not only that the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending all or a part of the claim, but also that ‘there is no need for a trial of the claim or the part of the claim’.

As to the onus of proof in an application for summary judgment, Daubney J held:

As this is the plaintiff's application, the burden of satisfying the court of the matters referred to in UCPR 292(2)(a) and (b) rests on the plaintiff: see Qld Park Pty Ltd v Lott; as his Honour observes there, this approach is consistent with that under the former rules. As under the former rules, where a plaintiff leads evidence to make out a prima facie entitlement to judgment, the evidentiary onus shifts to the defendant: see Qld Park Pty Ltd v Lott.

Summary judgment will be granted in only the clearest of cases. The power conferred by s 47 should only be exercised in those cases where it is clear that a party has no real prospects of success and there is no need for a hearing. For KMR to be successful in the application for summary dismissal, I must be satisfied that has no real prospect of success in the proceeding and that there is no need for a hearing in respect of his claim against KMR. As McMeekin J observed in Reardon v Deputy Commissioner for Taxation:

The test to be applied has been expressed in various ways, but all of the verbal formulae which have been used are intended to describe a high degree of certainty about the ultimate outcome of the proceeding if it were allowed to go to trial in the ordinary way.

Conclusion

  1. [61]
    The decision of Walker[16] highlights the effect of a strict and very limited limitation time for complaint of three months from becoming aware of the defects, which was introduced by the 2016 amendments.
  2. [62]
    I have not been able to determine a proper basis upon which the time limitation period would relate to the date of the telephone conversation that Mr Hayward relies upon as his claim. An oral claim is not a valid claim.
  3. [63]
    In the QCAT review jurisdiction I have no further powers than those of the original decision maker. As such the only valid claim must be within time, in writing and contain all the information required by the Commissioner.
  4. [64]
    I find that here Mr Hayward’s only legitimate attempt to make a claim was the submission of the applicant’s written form on 8 July 2018 and this was out of time.
  5. [65]
    I find that the telephone conversation of 27 November 2017 is not a valid attempt to submit a claim form because it is not in writing and there is no proof that the information required by the Commissioner was conveyed to QBCC via that telephone call. Telephone carrier records do not of themselves indicate this information was provided; in any event the QBCC staff member who took the telephone call had no authority or power to receive a complaint/claim in oral form.
  6. [66]
    Similarly, to the learned  presiding member in Walker I do not accept that the only manner of providing the written claim is on the claim form . It is the most obvious and convenient way of  doing so, however there does not seem to be a clear statutory statement that this is the only form. However, I do accept that the content of a claim must include the detail that  the Commissioner requires from time to time. As stated, I cannot be satisfied that an oral (i.e. not written) attempt to claim would  in any way meet the requirements for a statutory claim under the Home Warranty Scheme.
  7. [67]
    As the 27 November 2017 telephone conversation fails to satisfy the statutory  requirements for the making of a claim under the Home Warranty Scheme there is no  need to consider whether or not the claim must have been in  the prescribed form. I do accept that it needed to be in writing and that the detail needs to cover all aspects of the information required by the Commissioner. There may well be a circumstance where such information can be provided to the Commissioner outside of the form, but still in writing. It is not central to this decision and to discuss  this  further would be to indulge in what on that approach is mere speculation.
  8. [68]
    The applicant submitted that the Australian Consumer Law applies to the Home Warranty. Beyond a mere assertion of this Mr Hayward provided no further information. The Home Warranty Scheme is administered under and governed by the QBCC Act and Regulations. It is on this basis that the matter has been decided.
  9. [69]
    Mr Hayward’s claim was not made in time  and the alleged claim of 27 November 2017 is not in writing. An oral claim is not a claim and therefore could not contain the information that was required by the Commissioner under regulation.
  10. [70]
    Pursuant to section 47 of the QCAT Act this application is misconceived in the following ways: (i) by asking for review to achieve a remedy when none can be provided by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has no discretion to extend the statutory time limits for filing claims. Nor does it have the power to overlook the requirements for the application to be in writing. It follows that a purported claim made orally cannot be a claim within the meaning of the QBCC Regulation. As  it is not in writing it must be concluded, by force of common sense,  a claim, not made in writing, to a person with no authority to accept information over telephone cannot possibly be conveying to the QBCC the information required by the Commissioner as  per regulations.
  11. [71]
    I do not go so far as finding that the QBCC claim form is the only way that such information might be conveyed but it is extremely clear from the legislation that having such information in writing is certainly the only way that a claim can be made. It is on this issue that Mr Haywood fails to substantiate his argument that he has made a legitimate claim on 27  November 2017.
  12. [72]
    None of the parties have taken issue with the written claim form of  8 July 2018 falling outside of the statutory time limit for filing such a claim under the Home  Warranty Scheme. For completeness I find that this claim, although in writing and on the Commission’s form, does not amount to a valid claim because it is out of time and the Tribunal has no power to extend this time limit.
  13. [73]
    I therefore grant the application for dismissal/striking out  of the application under section 47 of the QCAT Act  and the application filed by the applicant on 19 February 2019 is dismissed.

Footnotes

[1]  Respondent’s submissions August 2020.

[2]  Respondent’s submissions dated August 2020.

[3]  Note: The applicant entered a contract on the 7th of April 2017 with the builder. This was after the 28  October 2016 but before the 1 September 2018 . These dates are relevant because on the 1 September 2018 the 2018 QBCC Regulation commenced and the 2003 QBCC Regulation was repealed.  From the 28 October 2016 to the 30 August 2018 Schedule 2C of the 2003 QBCC regulation provided the terms of cover for residential contracts for the statutory scheme. There is no material difference between the applicable parts of the 2003 QBCC regulation and the 2018 QBCC regulation specifically section 16 Schedule 2C of the 2003 QBCC regulation in section 16, Schedule six of the 2018 regulation are identical.

[4]Applicant’s submissions dated 15 June 2020.

[5]Walker v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCAT 32.

[6]Walker v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCAT 32.

[7]Walker v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCAT 32.

[8]Walker v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCAT 32.

[9]Walker v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCAT 32.

[10]Reeve v Hamlyn [2015] QCATA 133, [36] (footnotes omitted).

[11][2018] QCAT 258. para 16 to 18

[12][2016] QCAT 294.

[13]Felstead, [39].

[14]Felstead, [76].

[15][2019] QCAT 38, [22] – [24].

[16]Walker v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCAT 32.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Hayward v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Hayward v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

  • MNC:

    [2021] QCAT 180

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Kent

  • Date:

    11 May 2021

Appeal Status

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

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Beck v Kerry M Ryan Pty Ltd [2019] QCAT 38
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QCAT 38
Felstead v Bundaberg Homes Pty Ltd [2016] QCAT 294
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QCAT 294
Cite 2 - [2016] QCAT 294
Cite 3 - [2016] QCAT 294
Murtagh v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QCAT 258
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QCAT 258
Reeve v Hamlyn [2015] QCATA 133
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QCATA 133
Walker v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCAT 32
7 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QCAT 32
Cite 2 - [2021] QCAT 32
Cite 3 - [2021] QCAT 32
Cite 4 - [2021] QCAT 32
Cite 5 - [2021] QCAT 32
Cite 6 - [2021] QCAT 32
Cite 7 - [2021] QCAT 32

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

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.