Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2022
  4. Perry v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2022] QCAT 234

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

Perry v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2022] QCAT 234

Perry v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2022] QCAT 234

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Perry v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2022] QCAT 234

PARTIES:

ERROL ROBERT MORTIMER PERRY

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR039-20

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

20 June 2022

HEARING TYPE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Lumb

ORDERS:

The Application for miscellaneous matters filed on 7 October 2021 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – BUILDERS – STATUTORY INSURANCE SCHEME – applicant engaged contractor to perform roofing work – roofing work found to be defective – applicant made claim under Statutory Insurance Scheme – Queensland Building and Construction Commission rejected the claim in reliance on s 61 of the Terms of Cover – applicant applied to the Tribunal to review decision to disallow claim – applicant subsequently engaged a contractor to carry out rectification work – the Commission asserted that rectification work was done without prior written approval and this also precluded the claim by virtue of s 64 of the Terms of Cover – Commission applies to dismiss review application under s 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) – whether s 64 applies to rectification work done after making of decision to refuse applicant’s claim – whether Commission has shown that the review application is misconceived or lacking in substance

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 67WB, s 67X, s 72, s 87

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld), s 58, s 61, s 64, s 67, s 68, s 69, s 70 of Schedule 6

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 47

Auret v Queensland Building Services Authority & Anor [2013] QCAT 623

Cronin v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2019] QCAT 14

Simons & Ors v Dowd Lawyers Pty Ltd [2020] QCAT 348

University of the Sunshine Coast v Hickson-Jamieson [2022] QCATA 54

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

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant: Self-represented

Respondent: Norton Rose Fulbright Australia

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

Introduction

  1. [1]
    This is an Application for miscellaneous matters filed on 7 October 2021 (the Dismissal Application) by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (the QBCC).  The QBCC is the respondent to an Application to review a decision filed on 5 February 2020 (the Review Application) by Errol Perry (Mr Perry) as applicant.
  2. [2]
    By the Review Application, Mr Perry seeks to review a decision by the QBCC dated 13 January 2020 (the Review Decision) disallowing a claim by Mr Perry under the Statutory Insurance Scheme (the Scheme) established pursuant to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (the QBCC Act), in relation to work undertaken at a property at Thornlands in the State of Queensland (the Property).  Mr Perry has applied to review the Review Decision pursuant to s 87 of the QBCC Act.
  3. [3]
    By the Dismissal Application, the QBCC seeks an order, pursuant to s 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (the QCAT Act), dismissing the Review Application on the ground that it is misconceived and/or lacking in substance.[1]

Background

  1. [4]
    The following facts do not appear to be in dispute:
    1. (a)
      in June 2018 Mr Perry entered into a Basic Works Contract (Residential) (the Contract) with a contractor for the provision of certain works to be performed on the roof of a building located on the Property;
    2. (b)
      on or about 19 July 2018, the QBCC issued to Mr Perry a Notice of Cover under the Scheme for the works to be performed under the Contract (the Work);
    3. (c)
      on or about 30 May 2019, Mr Perry lodged a complaint with the QBCC regarding the completion of the Work, alleging that the box gutter installed by the contractor measured 200 mm while the plan for the Work required a box gutter measuring 450 mm;
    4. (d)
      on 5 August 2019, the QBCC identified in its Initial Inspection Report the following:

Roof water drainage is not installed between the new roof structure and existing buildings in accordance with the requirements of BCA P2.2.1, AS3500.3 and HB 39 which is unsatisfactory.

…

The installation of the roof sheeting and gable cladding to the roof over the dance studio does not meet a satisfactory standard expected of a competent holder of a license nor does it comply with the provisions of BCA P2.2.2., AS3500.3 and HB 39 in that there are:

a) Holes in southern gable cladding

b) Missing and pooly [sic] installed flashings

c) Fixings screws without seals

d) Damaged ridge capping insufficient fixings to barge capping and cladding

e) Unevenly finished cladding

…

  1. (e)
    on 8 August 2019, the QBCC issued a Direction to Rectify and/or Complete Work to the contractor relating to the above items.  The contractor subsequently failed to comply with the Direction;
  2. (f)
    on 27 September 2019, the QBCC advised Mr Perry that the contractor had failed to comply and, additionally, that the Scheme was unable to provide cover for any of the items the subject of Mr Perry’s complaint;
  3. (g)
    following some queries raised by Mr Perry regarding a claim for assistance under the Scheme, on 21 November 2019 the QBCC advised Mr Perry that the QBCC decided that the Scheme was unable to provide cover for any of Mr Perry’s claim items;
  4. (h)
    on 10 December 2019, Mr Perry requested an internal review of the QBCC’s Decision dated 21 November 2019;
  5. (i)
    on 13 January 2020, the QBCC advised Mr Perry of the Review Decision;
  6. (j)
    on 5 February 2020 Mr Perry filed the Review Application.

The Reasons for the Review Decision

  1. [5]
    On 14 May 2020, the QBCC filed a Statement of Reasons for the Decision.  In short, the QBCC decided that the decision to disallow Mr Perry’s claim was the correct and preferable decision on two (related) bases, first, the Work was not eligible for assistance under the Scheme because of the application of s 67WB(1)(a)(i) of the QBCC Act and, second, s 61 of the “Terms of Cover”[2] did not apply because at the time of Mr Perry’s claim under the Scheme, the Work would not be covered under the Scheme because of s 67WB(1)(a)(i) of the QBCC Act.
  2. [6]
    By an Amended Statement of Reasons for the Decision filed on 8 September 2021, the QBCC added a further ground to support its opinion that the correct and preferable decision was that the claim should be disallowed.  The QBCC’s position was that the alleged non-compliance with s 64 of the Terms of Cover disentitled Mr Perry to assistance under the Scheme.  It is this ground that is solely relied upon by the QBCC to found its argument that the Review Application is misconceived or lacking in substance.[3]
  3. [7]
    Before considering the QBCC’s argument, I will address the operation of s 47 of the QCAT Act.

Section 47 of the QCAT Act

  1. [8]
    Section 47 provides:
  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; or
  1. (b)
    for a part of a proceeding brought before the tribunal by a party other than the applicant for the proceeding—
  1. (i)
    make its final decision in the proceeding in the applicant’s favour; or
  1. (ii)
    order that the party who brought the part before the tribunal be removed from the proceeding; or
  1. (c)
    make a costs order against the party who brought the proceeding or part before the tribunal to compensate another party for any reasonable costs, expenses, loss, inconvenience and embarrassment resulting from the proceeding or part.

Note—

See section 108 for the tribunal’s power to order that the costs be paid before it continues with the proceeding.

  1. (3)
    The tribunal may act under subsection (2) on the application of a party to the proceeding or on the tribunal’s own initiative.
  1. (4)
    The tribunal’s power to act under subsection (2) is exercisable only by—
  1. (a)
    the tribunal as constituted for the proceeding; or
  1. (b)
    if the tribunal has not been constituted for the proceeding—a legally qualified member or an adjudicator.
  1. [9]
    In Simons & Ors v Dowd Lawyers Pty Ltd,[4] the Hon Peter Lyons QC, Judicial Member, said the following in relation to s 47:[5]

[34] Section 47 is found in Division 1 of Chapter 2, Part 5 of the QCAT Act. That division is headed “Early End to Proceeding”. Its purpose seems to me to be broadly similar to rr 292 and 293 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (“UCPR”), found in Chapter 9, which is entitled “Ending Proceedings Early”. With respect to those rules, in Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Salcedo McMurdo P said:

Nothing in the UCPR … detracts from the well established principle that issues raised in proceedings will be determined summarily only in the clearest of cases.

[35] In that context, her Honour quoted the following passage from the judgment of Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ in Agar v Hyde:

Ordinarily, a party is not to be denied the opportunity to place his or her case before the court in the ordinary way, and after taking advantage of the usual interlocutory processes. 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.

[36] The language used in s 47 is not identical to the language used in the UCPR. However, the expressions “frivolous, vexatious or misconceived” suggest a high threshold must be crossed before the Tribunal can exercise its powers under this section. No doubt the expression “lacking in substance” is not to be confined in its operation to cases which are frivolous, vexatious or misconceived. However, it is to be read with the expression “otherwise an abuse of process” found in s 47(1)(c). In my view, the language of s 47 of the QCAT Act indicates that a party who invokes it on the basis that the opponent’s case is weak, faces at least as high a hurdle as a party applying for summary judgment under rr 292 and 293 of the UCPR; and that the principles in the passages quoted above are accordingly relevant.

(citations omitted)

  1. [10]
    In University of the Sunshine Coast v Hickson-Jamieson,[6] Judicial Member D J McGill SC said:[7]

The structure of s 47 is that it is first necessary to find that one of the requirements of subsection (1) applies. If that finding is made, the discretion under subsection (2) arises. The issue is not whether the applicant, or the Member, can identify a reasonable cause of action, or a case which is not fatally flawed; it is a matter for the party seeking relief under s 47 to show that the applicant’s case is lacking in substance.

The QBCC’s argument re s 64 of the Terms of Cover

  1. [11]
    Section 64 of the Terms of Cover provides:
  1. (1)
    A consumer for residential construction work is not entitled to claim assistance in relation to the work if the consumer does any of the following without the prior written approval of the commission—
  1. (a)
    demolishes the built work;
  1. (b)
    rectifies the work;
  1. (c)
    reinstates the built work.

Note—

See section 67(2).

  1. (2)
    In this section—

approval does not include the following—

  1. (a)
    a decision of the commission about the scope of works to be carried out to rectify residential construction work or reinstate built work;
  1. (b)
    a decision of the commission to grant an application for an owner-builder permit.
  1. [12]
    The QBCC points to Mr Perry’s evidence of an invoice issued to him on or about 14 July 2020 by All Seasons Roofing Qld Pty Ltd in an amount of $5,761.80 for the work performed at the Property.  The invoice describes the work performed as follows:

[R]emove Custom Orb cladding from both sides of gable roof and [re]place with new, including barge flashing.

[Re]place 7 lm of ridge and scribe.

[Re]move 8 lm of square gutter to access box gutter, repair and make [go]od.

[Su]pply and install new ridge capping and scribe.

  1. [13]
    The QBCC submits that at no time prior to the issuing of the invoice did the QBCC receive any request from Mr Perry to approve such work (described by the QBCC as the “Rectification Work”) or issue any written approval to Mr Perry for that work.[8]
  2. [14]
    The QBCC further submits that the Rectification Work is caught by s 64 and in this regard the QBCC relies upon the Tribunal’s decision in Cronin v Queensland Building and Construction Commission.[9]
  3. [15]
    Cronin was also a case in which a claim for assistance under the Scheme was disallowed by the QBCC.  The claim was disallowed on the basis that new contractors had been engaged to work on the house in question without prior written approval of the QBCC.  The work the subject of the claim in that case was found to fall into two categories namely, “emergency work” and “rectification work”.
  4. [16]
    With respect to the emergency work, it was considered to be work to make the structure safe.  The Member found that this type of work did not fall within s 64 because it was not demolition or reinstatement work, and it did not rectify any defective work, which remained defective.[10]
  5. [17]
    With respect to the rectification work, some of the work was done before the claim for assistance was made, with the balance carried out after the claim was made but prior to the date on which the QBCC “rejected” (disallowed) the claim.[11]
  6. [18]
    The Member confirmed the QBCC’s decision to disallow the claim.  The Member found that:
    1. (a)
      the work contemplated by s 64 is not limited to work done prior to the submission of a claim and also applied to work done after the initial claim (the construction issue);[12]
    2. (b)
      the Rectification Work (both before and after the claim) was work within s 64;[13]
    3. (c)
      the terms of s 64 do not provide any discretion to allow an insurance claim if work described in the section has been done without prior written approval of the QBCC;[14]
    4. (d)
      the Tribunal cannot do more than can be done by the original decision maker (the QBCC).[15]
  7. [19]
    With respect to the construction issue, I consider that, at a factual level, Cronin is distinguishable from the present case because, here, all of the rectification work was undertaken after the QBCC had disallowed the claim by Mr Perry.  For the purposes of this Dismissal Application, the issue is whether it is at least reasonably arguable that s 64 does not apply to work otherwise caught by that provision if it is undertaken after the QBCC has made its decision in respect of the claim for assistance (here, to disallow the claim).
  8. [20]
    In relation to the construction issue, the Member placed some emphasis on s 58 of the Terms of Cover.  The Member said:[16]

[31] Any such distinction as contended for on the Applicant’s behalf would also appear to be contra-indicated by the use of the expression ‘claim assistance’ in another part of the statutory provisions covering the statutory insurance scheme. Although in most cases where this expression is used in the QBCC Regulation it necessarily refers to the initial insurance claim, in section 58 of Schedule 2C of the QBCC Regulation it is used as follows:-

A consumer for residential construction work is not entitled to claim assistance if the consumer unreasonably refuses the commission access to the built work for the purposes of assessing a claim for the work.

[32] Here the expression ‘claim assistance’ is clearly referring to events happening after the making of the initial insurance claim. It is right that this should not be regarded as wholly persuasive. But this shows at least that the expression in section 64 could mean the same as it does in section 58.

[33] In my view, the correct purposive interpretation of section 64, consistent with its use elsewhere in the QBCC Regulation, is that it applies both to work done before and after the initial insurance claim.

(citation omitted)

  1. [21]
    Section 58 of the Terms of Cover is found (as is s 64) in Division 2 of Part 5 of Schedule 6 to the Regulation.  Section 58 is concerned with permitting access to the “built work” for the purposes of “assessing a claim for the work”.  In my view, given the reference to the assessing of a claim, s 58 is intended to have application during the period prior to the date on which the QBCC makes its decision to allow or disallow a claim.  It does not purport to operate after such a claim has been assessed and a decision made by the QBCC.
  2. [22]
    In this context, other provisions of the Terms of Cover also warrant consideration.  The “Note” to s 64(1) of the Terms of Cover refers to s 67(2) of the Terms of Cover.
  3. [23]
    Section 67 (which forms part of Part 6 of Schedule 6 to the Regulation) provides:
  1. (1)
    This section applies if—
  1. (a)
    the commission is given notice of a claim for assistance; and
  1. (b)
    the commission is of the opinion the residential construction work the subject of the claim is defective or incomplete.
  1. (2)
    Before deciding to allow or disallow the claim, the commission must decide whether to give a direction to rectify or remedy the work under section 72 of the Act.
  1. [24]
    Subsection 67(2) makes it mandatory for the QBCC to decide whether to give a direction to rectify or remedy the work under s 72 of the QBCC Act before deciding to allow or disallow a claim for assistance.  The operative event is the making of the decision to allow or disallow the claim.
  2. [25]
    In the event that a direction is given under s 72 of the QBCC Act, the QBCC must not make a decision to allow or disallow a claim under the Scheme in relation to the work until the period for complying with the direction has ended.[17]
  3. [26]
    Further, s 70(1) of the Terms of Cover provides:

A consumer for residential construction work has a duty to the commission to act in good faith in relation to a claim for assistance.

Example of acting in good faith—

disclosing to the commission any matter the consumer knows, or ought reasonably to know, is relevant to the commission making a decision on the claim

  1. [27]
    In my view, the above “Example” contemplates that the relevant period is the period up to the making of a decision on the claim for assistance.
  2. [28]
    Returning to s 64(1) of the Terms of Cover, I consider that the carrying out of any unapproved work, e.g. rectification work, could impact the assessment of the allegedly defective work and would impact the ability of the QBCC to direct the person who carried out the building work to rectify such work (and in the case of satisfactory rectification, no claim for assistance would need to be pursued).  Accordingly, there is support for a construction that s 64 applies to unapproved work carried out after the initial claim for assistance but before the decision is made to allow or disallow the claim for assistance. However, it is not immediately apparent why it would be necessary to obtain written approval from the QBCC after it has made a decision in relation to the claim, particularly where it disallows the claim.
  3. [29]
    The Objects of the QBCC Act include the following:
    1. (a)
      to achieve a reasonable balance between the interests of building contractors and consumers;[18]
    2. (b)
      to provide remedies for defective building work.[19]
  4. [30]
    The purpose of the Scheme is to provide assistance to consumers of residential construction work for loss associated with work that is defective or incomplete.[20]
  5. [31]
    It could be argued that those Objects and that purpose are not achieved if a consumer for residential construction work were to be denied recovery under the Scheme solely on the basis that he or she caused necessary rectification work to be carried out (without written approval) after the QBCC had disallowed the consumer’s claim for assistance.
  6. [32]
    Reading the QBCC Act and the Regulation as a whole (particularly the provisions identified above), I consider that it is reasonably arguable that s 64, on its proper construction, only applies to work contemplated by s 64 which is done (without written approval) prior to the making of the decision to allow or disallow a claim under the Scheme.[21]  I do not express a concluded view on this question save that I consider that it is at least sufficiently arguable as to warrant further submissions from both parties and consideration by the Tribunal at a final hearing of the Review Application (at which time all of the issues raised by the parties can be considered in conjunction).  In my view, the QBCC has failed to show that the Review Application is misconceived or lacking in substance for the purposes of s 47 of the QCAT Act.[22]
  7. [33]
    This is sufficient to dispose of the Dismissal Application.
  8. [34]
    However, for completeness I will address one further issue which is raised by Mr Perry.

The further issue

  1. [35]
    In Mr Perry’s written submissions filed on 8 November 2021 opposing the Dismissal Application, Mr Perry submits, amongst other matters:[23]

Perry v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2022] QCAT 234q) On 29.10.19 [Mr] Perry, forwarded a claim to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission which included the quote from the All Seasons Roofing Qld Pty Ltd for approval

r) The Queensland Building and Construction Commission did not acknowledge the correspondence forwarded on 29.10.19

s) The only information which the Queensland Building and Construction Commission provided was to quote s.67wb

t) This section is not relevant as it is a ghost as it refers to a Town Planning Consent issued by the Redlands Council twenty-four years ago and which had lapsed

u) In September, 2020 following two months of hospitalization for a broken wrist and hip where [Mr] Perry had restricted mobility for some time, having tolerated for two and a half years of having to mop up and dry the wet floor by using an electric oscillating heater a day at a time, [Mr]  Perry “fed up” with the Queensland Building and Construction Commission continual procrastination, frustration and emotional torture, as an absolute necessity instructed All Seasons Roofing Qld Pty Ltd to undertake the rectification, which was eleven months after [Mr] Perry submitted the quote to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission

v) Included in the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Amended Statement of Reasons issued on 07.10.21 for the first time, was s64, which referred to the consumer resident requiring Queensland Building and Construction Commission approval to undertake rectification work. It does not refer to an owner resident. A consumer resident can be a tenant in a rented property, a house sitter, a live- in caretaker etc.

w) The Queensland Building and Construction Commission was notified on 29.10.19 by being forwarded a formal quote by All Seasons Roofing Qld Pty Ltd

x) It was reasonable to accept that by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission never responded eleven months after the quote was forwarded that it was implied that the rectification work could proceed

  1. [36]
    In its Reply Submissions, the QBCC submitted in response:

3.11 By these paragraphs, the Applicant submits that:

  1. (1)
    on 29 October 2019, the Applicant provided a quote from All Seasons Roofing Pty Ltd to the QBCC for approval;
  1. (2)
    the QBCC did not acknowledge the Applicant’s email of 29 October 2019;
  1. (3)
    being “fed up” with the delay, in September 2020 the Applicant caused the Rectification Work to be performed; and
  1. (4)
    it was implicit in the QBCC’s silence in respect of the quote that the Rectification Work could proceed.

3.12 The QBCC respectfully submits that these submissions are not supported by the material before the Tribunal and cannot be accepted.

3.13 There is no material before the Tribunal evidencing that the Applicant provided a quote for the Rectification Work to the QBCC for approval on 29 October 2019. The QBCC has reviewed its files and has not located a copy of any such correspondence.

3.14 At its highest, a quote from All Seasons Roofing Pty Ltd dated 22 October 2019 was included in the Applicant’s application for internal review lodged with the Respondent on 10 December 2019. In circumstances where such material was provided to the QBCC in the context of seeking an internal review of a decision, the QBCC submits that such provision of the document should not be taken as a request for approval for the Applicant to undertake the Rectification Work pursuant to section 64 of the Terms of Cover.

3.15 There is a further factual inconsistency in the Applicant’s Submissions, insofar as the Applicant submits that the Rectification Work was performed in about September 2020 however the All Seasons Invoice for the Rectification Work is dated 14 July 2020.

3.16 Notwithstanding the above, the provision of any quote for the Rectification Work does not alter the fact that the QBCC did not provide its prior written approval to the Applicant to perform the Rectification Work, as is expressly required by section 64 of the Terms of Cover.

3.17 Contrary to the Applicant’s Submissions, the QBCC submits that in circumstances where:

  1. (1)
    the Applicant was put on notice of the Terms of Cover, including limitations, by no later than 19 July 2018;
  1. (2)
    a complaint regarding defective building work and/or a claim for assistance under the SIS was being considered by the QBCC at the time that the Applicant caused the Rectification Work to be performed;
  1. (3)
    as set out above, it appears that the QBCC was notified of the quoted rectification works only by an inclusion in the Applicant’s application for internal review;
  1. (4)
    since 29 January 2020, the Decision has been the subject of review by the Tribunal (and including at the time the Rectification Work was performed, being either July 2020 or October 2020); and
  1. (5)
    section 64 of the Terms of Cover expressly require the QBCC’s written approval before work is rectified,

it is entirely unreasonable for the Applicant to consider that the QBCC’s silence amounted to its implicit authorisation that he could cause the Rectification Work to be performed. In the QBCC’s submission, the clear and reasonable inference in the circumstances is that no such approval was forthcoming.

(footnotes omitted)

  1. [37]
    Insofar as the QBCC raises a factual dispute, I consider that this application is not the appropriate forum for adjudicating such a dispute; it should await determination at a final hearing.
  2. [38]
    Further, there appears to be an unresolved question as to whether estoppel applies in the context of administrative decision-making under the QBCC Act; with some Tribunal authority favouring the view that estoppel may be available against the Commission in an appropriate case.[24]  While I express no concluded view as to this issue, the view expressed is one that is plainly open for consideration.  On that basis, I consider that, if the facts asserted by Mr Perry in paragraphs q), r), s), u), v) (first sentence) and w) above were accepted by the Tribunal, the doctrine of estoppel would warrant consideration at a final hearing, particularly given that the rectification work was undertaken after the QBCC made its decision to disallow the claim (on grounds entirely discrete from s 64 of the Terms of Cover).  This is not to suggest that such an argument should necessarily prevail if Mr Perry’s version of events were accepted; rather, I am not satisfied, to the requisite degree of certainty,[25] that the matter should be determined summarily.

Order

  1. [39]
    For the reasons set out above, the Application for miscellaneous matters filed on 7 October 2021 is dismissed.

Footnotes

[1]See QBCC’s Submissions filed as part of the Dismissal Application, paragraphs 1.5 and 5.1.

[2]This is a reference to the terms of cover for the Scheme which are found in Schedule 6 to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld) (the Regulation).  I will adopt this phrase for the purposes of these Reasons.

[3]The QBCC maintains the other grounds in the event that the Dismissal Application is unsuccessful: QBCC’s Submissions, paragraph 1.7.

[4][2020] QCAT 348.

[5]At [34]-[36].

[6][2022] QCATA 54.

[7]At [27].

[8]QBCC’s Submissions, paragraphs 2.10-2.11.

[9][2019] QCAT 14 per Member Gordon.

[10]See [43].

[11]See [43]-[44].

[12]See [25]-[33].

[13]See [39]-[45].

[14]See [54]-[55].

[15]See [56]-[58].

[16]At [31]-[33].

[17]See s 68 of the Terms of Cover.

[18]Subsection 3(a)(ii).

[19]Subsection 3(b).

[20]See s 67X(2) of the QBCC Act.

[21]Section 69 of the Terms of Cover provides for the giving of notice of the decision.

[22]See Hickson-Jamieson at [27].

[23]Paragraphs q) to x).

[24]Walker v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCAT 32 at [96]-[97] per Member Paratz AM, adopting the views he expressed in Auret v Queensland Building Services Authority & Anor [2013] QCAT 623.

[25]See Simons at [34]-[35].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Perry v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Perry v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

  • MNC:

    [2022] QCAT 234

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Lumb

  • Date:

    20 Jun 2022

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
Auret v Queensland Building Services Authority & Anor [2013] QCAT 623
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2013] QCAT 623
Cite 2 - [2013] QCAT 623
Cronin v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2019] QCAT 14
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QCAT 14
Cite 2 - [2019] QCAT 14
Simons & Ors v Dowd Lawyers Pty Ltd [2020] QCAT 348
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QCAT 348
Cite 2 - [2020] QCAT 348
Cite 3 - [2020] QCAT 348
Cite 4 - [2020] QCAT 348
University of the Sunshine Coast v Hickson-Jamieson [2022] QCATA 54
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QCATA 54
Cite 2 - [2022] QCATA 54
Cite 3 - [2022] QCATA 54
Walker v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCAT 32
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QCAT 32
Cite 2 - [2021] QCAT 32

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Frame v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2024] QCAT 631 citation
Perry v Queensland Building and Construction Commission (no. 2) [2023] QCAT 2864 citations
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.