Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2023
  4. Zeng v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2023] QCAT 347

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

Zeng v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2023] QCAT 347

Zeng v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2023] QCAT 347

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Zeng v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2023] QCAT 347

PARTIES:

LIUOU ZENG

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO52-21

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

8 September 2023

HEARING DATE:

10 July 2023

HEARD AT:

Holland Park

DECISION OF:

Member Younger

ORDERS:

  1. The application for minor civil dispute – consumer dispute – filed on 27 April 2021, having been considered as a minor debt dispute, is dismissed on the merits;
  2. No order is made as to costs, pursuant to s 100 of the QCAT Act.

CATCHWORDS:

MINOR DEBT CLAIM – DEBT OR LIQUIDATED DEMAND – refund of insurance premium – brought as a consumer dispute against a trader – where Appeal Tribunal determined respondent not a trader – whether QCAT has jurisdiction – whether it is a claim for a debt or liquidated demand of money – whether there is a basis in common law or statute for the refund

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 11, s 12, s 13, s 47, s 100, Schedule 3

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 67WA, s 67WC, s 67WD, s 67Y, s 67X, s 68A, s 68F, s 68G, s 68H, s 69

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2006 (Qld), Schedule 1AA, Schedule 2C, Schedule 6

Legal Services Commissioner v Leneham [2017] QCAT 96

Rajagopal v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2020] QCAT 154

Zeng v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2023] QCATA 10

APPEARANCES &

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

L Davey, instructed by Queensland Building and Construction Commission

­REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

  1. [1]
    The Applicant, Ms Zeng, and her husband, Mr Ivano Berlese are the owners of a property at Eight Mile Plains, Qld (‘property’).
  2. [2]
    On 2 January 2018, Ms Zeng paid the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (‘QBCC’) an amount of $1,017.95 towards an insurance premium under the Statutory Insurance Scheme (‘Scheme’), in relation to building work to be carried out at the property.[1] 
  3. [3]
    QBCC issued a Notice of Cover – Queensland Home Warranty Scheme (‘Cover’) commencing on 2 January 2018, for residential construction work consisting of a new dwelling and swimming pool, to be carried out by licensed builder, Domenico Berlese (‘builder’).[2]
  4. [4]
    On 20 February 2018, Ms Zeng and the builder entered into a HIA QLD Residential Building Contract (‘Contract’) in relation to the work at the property.
  5. [5]
    On 18 January 2018, there was an amendment made to the Cover due to a variation increase to the Contract.[3] On the same date, Ms Zeng paid QBCC $2,305.50 towards the insurance premium.[4]
  6. [6]
    On 12 May 2018 the builder died.[5]
  7. [7]
    By that stage, Ms Zeng had paid a total of $3,323 to QBCC towards the insurance premium.[6]
  8. [8]
    QBCC made further amendments made to the Cover on 28 May and 29 May 2018 due to variation increases to the Contract.[7]
  9. [9]
    Ms Zeng paid the following further amounts to QBCC towards the insurance premium, after the builder’s death:
    1. 28 May 2018: $6,762.70 and $3,711.95;
    2. 29 May 2018: $2,208.25.[8]
  10. [10]
    It is not in dispute that Ms Zeng ultimately paid QBCC the total sum of $16,006.35 for the insurance premium (for an insurable value of $2,000,000.00).[9]
  11. [11]
    There is dispute in the evidence as to when/if the builder commenced work at the property.
  12. [12]
    Ms Zeng’s position is the builder did not commence building work, but only undertook excavation work, which is not building work.[10] By contrast, QBCC’s position is that the builder did commence building work prior to his death.
  13. [13]
    On 10 January 2020, QBCC made a decision to disallow the claim for incomplete work under the Scheme, on the basis that it had not been made within three months after the contract ended, as required under the QBCC Regulation 2006 (‘Regulation’).[11] QBCC found that the contract between the owners and the builder had ended by default when the builder died.[12] The relevant provisions are set out below.
  14. [14]
    Ms Zeng requested an internal review from QBCC on or about 6 February 2020.[13]
  15. [15]
    QBCC confirmed by internal review decision of 20 February 2020 to disallow the claim under the Scheme.
  16. [16]
    On 10 July 2020, Ms Zeng requested a refund of the insurance premium paid to the QBCC. On 22 July 2020, QBCC advised Ms Zeng the insurance premium could not be refunded.
  17. [17]
    On 17 June 2021, Ms Zeng again requested a refund of the insurance premium paid to the QBCC.

Tribunal proceedings

  1. [18]
    On 27 July 2021, Ms Zeng filed an application for a minor civil dispute – consumer dispute in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) seeking a total amount of $16,364.35, comprising:
    1. refund of money (being the insurance premium paid to QBCC in the amount of $16,006.35; and
    2. payment of filing fee for the application in the amount of $358.00.
  2. [19]
    On 27 September 2021, the proceedings were initially dismissed by a Tribunal Adjudicator for lack of jurisdiction “on the papers”. That is, on a summary basis without an oral hearing, without hearing the merits of the application.
  3. [20]
    On 9 February 2023, in Zeng v QBCC,[14] Member Gordon of the Tribunal:
    1. granted the applicant leave to appeal and allowed the appeal;
    2. set aside the decision made by the Tribunal on 27 September 2021 to dismiss the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction; and
    3. returned the proceedings to the minor civil dispute jurisdiction for reconsideration.

Appeal judgment – jurisdictional issue

  1. [21]
    Section 11 of the QCAT Act provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and decide a minor civil dispute, and section 12 of the QCAT Act provides for when jurisdiction for a minor civil dispute may be exercised by the Tribunal. Schedule 3 sets out the definition of a ‘minor civil dispute’. I will not recite those provisions again, as they have already been considered by the Appeal Tribunal.[15]
  2. [22]
    In Zeng v QBCC,[16] Member Gordon referred to the Adjudicator’s finding that there was no jurisdiction to hear this matter as a minor civil dispute, as it was neither a debt to recover a debt or liquidated demand of money, nor arising out of a contract between a consumer and a trader.[17] Member Gordon found this was not a consumer-trader dispute, on the basis that QBCC is not a ‘trader’.[18]
  3. [23]
    Member Gordon decided that this was a claim to recover a debt or liquidated demand of money, on the basis that the amount claimed is an ascertained and known amount, and if the claim succeeds, the whole of the money would be repayable.[19] Given this finding, the appeal was allowed.
  4. [24]
    Member Gordon’s noted the following as to the merits of the claim:[20]
    1. The Scheme itself provides for refund of premiums, none of which fit the circumstances pertaining here;
    2. It seems very unlikely that there is any room for a refund to be due under the common law;
    3. on paper, Ms Zeng’s claim is “obscure” and it is “quite unclear how she could be entitled to a refund”;
    4. on the face of the notice of cover, it appears to have been properly issued to take effect on 2 January 2018, work on site commenced, and the events which caused difficulties were much later in the year;
    5. if the insurance was cancelled, it must have been in place for a period of time and therefore, only a portion of the claim amount would be returnable. In that event, the amount would not be liquidated, as it would require assessment by the Tribunal. Therefore, it would not be within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as a claim to recover a debt or liquidated demand of money.
  5. [25]
    Although Member Gordon concluded that the claim was unlikely to be untenable, he determined that it was appropriate that the matter should be remitted to the minor civil dispute jurisdiction for hearing as to its merits.[21]
  6. [26]
    The Applicant has not filed specific submissions in response to the appeal decision, and in particular as to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider this matter as a debt or liquidated demand of money.
  7. [27]
    The Respondent agrees with Member Gordon’s comments,[22] that:
    1. the Tribunal’s original jurisdiction may be enlivened pursuant to s 12(4)(a) of the QCAT Act, only if the claim is a debt or liquidated demand of money; and
    2. any final determination that a portion of the insurance premium is to be refunded would constitute an unliquidated demand of money, because that amount would need to be assessed, and would therefore not be within the minor civil dispute jurisdiction.

Relevant law

  1. [28]
    Part 5 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (‘QBCC Act’) establishes the Statutory Insurance Scheme (‘Scheme’).
  2. [29]
    Section 67X of the QBCC Act provides that the Scheme is to provide assistance to a ‘consumer’ of ‘residential construction work’ for loss associated with work that is defective or incomplete. Those terms are defined as follows:[23]

consumer, for residential construction work –

  1. means a person who contracts with a licensed contractor to carry out the work; and
  1. includes a person who purchases the work, once completed, if the work is primary insurable work.

...

residential construction work is—

  1. primary insurable work; or
  1. associated insurable work.
  1. [30]
    ‘Primary insurable work’ and ‘associated insurable work’ are defined to include the erection or construction of a residence or related roofed building.[24]
  2. [31]
    Schedule 2C of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2003 (‘QBCC Regulation’) provides the terms of cover for the Scheme.[25] One of these terms is that a licensed contractor must collect from the consumer, and pay to the QBCC, the appropriate insurance premium before the first of the following to happen:
    1. 10 business days elapse from the day the contract was entered into;
    2. the residential construction work starts.[26]
  1. [32]
    Section 68F of the QBCC Act provides that if the QBCC accepts an insurance premium for residential construction work, the QBCC must issue a notice of cover for the work, which must include the matters prescribed by regulation. The notice of cover may be revoked by the QBCC if they become aware, after the issuing of the notice, that the work for which the notice was issued is not residential construction work.[27]
  1. [33]
    Section 68H of the QBCC Act provides how cover under the Scheme for residential construction work comes into force. Relevantly:
  1. Cover under the statutory insurance scheme comes into force if—
  1. a consumer enters into a contract for the carrying out of residential construction work and—
  1. the contract bears the licence number of a licensed contractor and, under the licensed contractor’s licence, the licensed contractor may enter into contracts with consumers to carry out residential construction work covered by the statutory insurance scheme; or
  1. the contract is with a licensed contractor and, under the licensed contractor’s licence, the licensed contractor may enter into contracts with consumers to carry out residential construction work covered by the statutory insurance scheme; …
  1. Subsection (1) applies whether or not an insurance premium has been paid, or a notice of cover has been issued, for residential construction work under this part. …

Statutory basis for refunds of premiums

  1. [34]
    The QBCC Act sets out specific circumstances for the refund of an insurance premium by QBCC, including:
    1. Section 68G – where the QBCC revokes a notice of cover under s 68F;
    2. Section 69 – where cover is cancelled by a licensed contractor.

Claims made under the Scheme

  1. [35]
    Pursuant to Schedule 6 of the Regulation, claims under the Scheme can be made in relation to non-completion work and defective work,[28] subject to specified limitations including time limits for making a claim.[29]
  2. [36]
    Section 4, Part 1 of Schedule 6 of the Regulation sets out when a fixed price residential contract ends, to include where “(b) the licensed contractor dies”.
  3. [37]
    Part 2 of Schedule 6 of the Regulation sets out the provisions in relation to claims that a licensed contractor has not completed work. These are subject to limitations stated in ss 7 and 8 of Part 2.
  4. [38]
    I note this was the basis of the Applicant’s initial claim to QBCC under the Scheme, and that QBCC rejected the Applicant’s claim for non-completion pursuant to s 7(6),[30] which states:

No assistance can be given to the consumer unless the consumer makes a claim mentioned in this section before the day that is 3 months after the day the contract for the work ends.

  1. [39]
    Part 3 of Schedule 6 of the Regulation sets out the provisions in relation to claims for defective work by a licensed contractor.[31] These are subject to limitations stated in s 16 of Part 3, and in essence, relate to time periods relating to when the claimant becomes aware of the defect.

Current proceedings - submissions

Submissions of the Applicant

  1. [40]
    At the re-hearing on 10 July 2023, Ms Zeng confirmed that the basis of her claim is that due to the death of the builder the insurance premium became invalid and QBCC could not provide the goods/services of the insurance cover.
  2. [41]
    Ms Zeng seeks an order for refund of her insurance premium paid to QBCC. Whilst not clearly articulated, it appears she seeks for this to be refunded either in full ($16,006.35) or in part (being the refund of monies after the builder died in the amount of $12,682.90), plus her QCAT filing fees.[32] 
  3. [42]
    Ms Zeng relies upon her documents filed in the initial proceeding, as well as document headed ‘Insurance Payment Timeline’,[33] and evidence in support of that timeline,[34]
  4. [43]
    Ms Zeng submits that the builder did not undertake building work, but only excavation work, on the basis of information contained in the ‘Consequential Damage Inspection Report’ from QBCC (‘CDI Report’).[35] The CDI Report provides details of QBCC’s investigation of a claim made by Ms Zeng’s neighbour, and relevantly states:
    1. The property was inspected on 8 May 2018;
    2. excavation work had been carried out on the boundary line between the property owned by Ms Zeng (referred to as the “adjoining” and “adjacent” property in the Report) and the neighbouring property (i.e. owned by the claimant);[36]
    3. work carried out by the “builder of the adjoining property” included removal of a retaining wall and excavation on the boundary.[37]
  5. [44]
    Whilst no specific submissions were made by either party about the above, the reference to “builder” appears to be to the builder contracted to perform the work at Ms Zeng’s property.
  6. [45]
    At the hearing, Ms Zeng made further submissions including:
    1. Ms Zeng did not pay a deposit or any payment to the builder, because he did not undertake the building work;
    2. Prior to having the contracted work done, the owners were required to and pay a levy to Qleave of $7,125 relating to the building work, which was refunded to them by Qleave on 24 June 2021.[38] It appears that Ms Zeng’s argument is that she has been refunded for other building expenses for the work that could not be conducted due to the builder’s death, and she should also be refunded the insurance premium from QBCC;
    3. She paid insurance premiums after the death of the builder on the basis she thought she could make a claim in relation to the Cover. However, she understood she could no longer make any claim due to the death of the builder making the Cover invalid.
  7. [46]
    In submitting that the insurance is invalid, Ms Zeng relies specifically on a submission of QBCC filed in the initial proceeding that “in circumstances where the builder died, the Contract cannot now be varied (and was brought to an end on 12 May 2018 upon the death of the builder).”[39]

Submissions of the Respondent

  1. [47]
    In response, QBCC submit:
    1. An insurance premium was required to be paid by the contractor (i.e. the builder). The Applicant contracted with the builder for the carrying out of ‘residential construction work’ that was ‘primary insurable work’, being for the erection of a residence;
    2. The insurance premium was paid on behalf of the builder on 2 January 2018 and the Applicant was given the Cover;[40]
    3. the work undertaken by the builder at the property is covered by the Scheme, subject to any claim meeting the relevant terms of cover, until 2 July 2024;
    4. the insurance under the Scheme is not “invalid” as a result of the death of the builder; and
    5. there is no statutory basis in the QBCC Act or Regulation to permit a refund of the insurance premium, or a portion of the same, in the circumstances here.
  2. [48]
    The Respondent referred to Rajagopal v Queensland Building and Construction Commission,[41] in which Member Deane made comments to the effect that the Scheme does not provide unlimited consumer protection.
  1. [49]
    The Respondent submits that:
    1. a consumer’s entitlement to a claim under the Scheme does not automatically flow from the payment of an insurance premium, and is only available if the relevant policy conditions and terms of cover are satisfied;
    2. it would be contrary to the purpose of the Scheme, that a consumer denied a Claim is entitled to an entire refund of the premium paid for the Policy;
    3. the requirement to pay an insurance premium is designed to insure the residential construction works to be undertaken and may provide protection for consumers in certain circumstances; and
    4. the Cover still applies to the Applicant until 2 July 2024, for any further defective residential construction work which may arise (subject to any fresh claim meeting the Terms of Cover).
  2. [50]
    The Respondent submits that in circumstances where the Applicant still has cover for the property in place, the Commission does not consider it owes the Applicant a debt or liquidated demand of money. Further, if the Tribunal finds that only a portion of the amount is claimable, then this involves an unliquidated amount, which falls outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction for a minor debt claim.
  1. [51]
    The Respondent refers to the limited statutory powers in the QBCC Act and QBCC Regulation to permit the QBCC to refund of an insurance premium, or portion of same, and that those circumstances do not apply here.[42]
  1. [52]
    The Respondent submits that building work was commenced at the property on or about 21 February 2018, based upon:
    1. the Non-Completion Claim Form under the Qld Home Warranty Scheme submitted by Ms Zeng to QBCC on 5 December 2019 (‘claim under the Scheme’);[43] and
    2. Inspection Report prepared by a QBCC building inspector, Mr Klemm, dated 16 September 2019 (‘Inspection Report’).[44]
  2. [53]
    The claim under the Scheme refers to the final payment having been made, and the work having stopped on 15 October 2018.[45] These dates are inconsistent with the builder having died in May 2018.
  3. [54]
    The Inspection Report stated that on 5 September 2019, Mr Klemm carried out an inspection of the property, and found – through satellite images – that building work:
    1. had commenced at the property by 24 April 2018, and
    2. had continued without a principle (sic) contractor from mid-May 2018 until mid-July 2018.[46]

Application to strike out

  1. [55]
    QBCC further submits that Ms Zeng’s application lacks substance and is doomed to fail, and should be dismissed pursuant to section 47 of the QCAT Act.
  2. [56]
    Section 47 QCAT Act provides that the Tribunal may dismiss or strike out a proceeding or part of a proceeding if it is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived; lacking in substance, or otherwise an abuse of process.
  3. [57]
    The Respondent refers to the relevant principles for the Tribunal to consider in exercising its discretion under s 47 of the QCAT Act, including as stated in Legal Services Commissioner v Leneham:[47]

[14]  It is well settled that the applicant should not be denied access to a hearing unless the lack of a cause of action is clearly demonstrated. As was described by Barwick CJ in General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways NSW:

“The test to be applied has been variously expressed; "so obviously untenable that it cannot possibly succeed"; "manifestly groundless"; "so manifestly faulty that it does not admit of argument"; "discloses a case which the Court is satisfied cannot succeed"; "under no possibility can there be a good cause of action"; "be manifest that to allow them" (the pleadings) "to stand would involve useless expense".

Consideration of the merits

  1. [58]
    In relation to the Respondent’s submissions that the application should be struck out pursuant to s 47, I note that the proceeding was originally dismissed summarily, and then was appealed and a full re-hearing ordered. Given the history of this proceeding, and the Applicant’s self-represented position throughout (in which it was apparent that the legal issues were challenging for her), I do not consider it is appropriate to dismiss the application under this section. I therefore turn to consideration of the merits.
  2. [59]
    The essence of the Applicant’s case appears to be a claim for breach of contract, that she should be refunded the premium because she did not receive the value of the goods/services, namely the insurance related to the carrying out of the building work, due to the builder’s death. The Applicant submits that the builder did not commence building work, and that the Cover became invalid after the Contract ended with the builder’s death.
  3. [60]
    Although unclear from the Applicant’s submissions, it appears the Applicant seeks the full refund of the premium paid, or alternatively the amounts paid after the builder’s death.
  4. [61]
    On the other hand, the Respondent’s position is that since 2 January 2018 the Applicant has had the benefit of the insurance Cover which remains in place until 2 July 2024, notwithstanding the builder’s death in May 2018. The Respondent submits that the Applicant is not entitled to the full refund of the premium as a debt or liquidated demand of money, and that should the Tribunal determine that only a portion of the premium is refundable, this would no longer be within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
  5. [62]
    It is relevant context that prior to applying to the Tribunal, the Applicant had made a claim to QBCC under the Scheme, on the basis of non-completion of work by the builder. This claim was refused by QBCC for the reasons cited above and in summary, due to the time limits under the QBCC Act not having been met.
  6. [63]
    Having considered all the evidence before me, I am satisfied that:
    1. the Inspection Report provides cogent evidence that building work had been carried out at the property prior to the builder’s death, by 24 April 2018 and continued without a principal contractor from mid-May 2018 until mid-July 2018;
    2. In relation to the latter period of work (after the builder’s death), Ms Zeng stated at the hearing (words to the effect) that her husband had undertaken unlicensed building work at the property and had been fined for that. Whilst this factor may affect the outcome of any future claim the Applicant may make under the Cover, this is irrelevant to consideration of the application before me;
    3. whilst the builder’s death ended the Contract between the Applicant and the builder, the builder’s license and obviously any future work being undertaken by the builder, these factors:
      1. (i)
        did not invalidate the Cover, or
      1. (ii)
        prevent the Applicant from making a future claim under the Cover for alleged defective work performed by the builder; and
    4. the Cover remains in place between QBCC in relation to the property until 2 July 2024.
  7. [64]
    The circumstances outlined by the Applicant as to the financial and other pressures she and her family faced after the builder’s death, which created difficulties in having the building work completed, are to say the least, unfortunate. However, I find that there is no legal basis either under common law or on a statutory basis, for the Tribunal to award the Applicant a refund of her premium as a debt or liquidated demand.
  8. [65]
    There is no breach of contract established on the available evidence, which demonstrates the Respondent has provided the Cover in consideration of the premium paid by the Applicant. Further, none of the provisions under the QBCC Act with respect to refunds of premiums have application on the relevant circumstances.
  9. [66]
    I find that the evidence does not support that the Respondent owes the Applicant a “debt or liquidated demand of money” in relation to the insurance premium, within the meaning of the QCAT Act.
  10. [67]
    The potential jurisdictional issue raised by Member Gordon does not arise, given my findings that the Cover remained in place after the builder’s death and that the refund of the full premium was not a debt or liquidated demand.
  11. [68]
    For completeness, I note the Applicant’s unsuccessful claim for non-completion to the Respondent has no bearing upon the claim before the Tribunal, other than by way of context. The Respondent raises the potential of the Applicant seeking alternative relief through the general administrative review jurisdiction of the Tribunal. I note that is not a matter which can be determined in the minor civil debt jurisdiction, and I have no power to review the QBCC’s decision to refuse the claim.

Orders

  1. [69]
    For the reasons set out above, and having regard to s 13 of the QCAT Act:
    1. The application for minor civil dispute – consumer dispute - filed on 27 April 2021, having been considered as a minor debt dispute, is dismissed on the merits;
    2. No order is made as to costs, pursuant to s 100 of the QCAT Act.

Footnotes

[1]  Insurance Payment Timeline, filed by the Applicant at the hearing on 10 July 2023.

[2]  Notice of Cover annexed to the Application filed 27 July 2021. Also, Note 1.

[3]  Submissions of Respondent dated 7 July 2023 at [6].

[4]  Note 1.

[5]  Death Certificate of Domenico Berlese, attached to the Application filed 27 July 2021.

[6]  Note 1.

[7]  Note 3 at [10]-[11].

[8]  Note 1.

[9]  Note 3 at [11]; “Evidence C”, Note 1. Note 2.

[10]  Pursuant to Schedule 1AA QBCC Regulation 2006 (‘Regulation’). Ms Zeng bases this submission on a Consequential Damage Inspection Report prepared by the QBCC dated 8 May 2018, which is discussed further below.

[11]  Schedule 6, Part 2, Subdivision 2, s 7(6) states “No assistance can be given to the consumer unless the consumer makes a claim mentioned in this section before the day that is 3 months after the day the contract for the work ends.”

[12]  Pursuant to Schedule 6, Part 1, s 4(1)(b) Regulation - SUB-6 to Submissions in Response – Original Decision dated 10 January 2020.

[13]  “SUB-7” and “SUB-8” to Submissions in Response - Reasons as stated in Ms Zeng’s emails to the QBCC dated 4 and 6 February 2020.

[14]  [2023] QCATA 10.

[15]  Ibid at [12] and [25]-[40].

[16]  Ibid at [8].

[17]  The first two limbs of the definition of ‘minor civil dispute’ in Schedule 3, QCAT Act.

[18]  Note 14 at [9], referring to the relevant part of the definition of ‘trader’ in Schedule 3, QCAT Act.

[19]  Note 14 at [16].

[20]  Note 14 at [19]-[21].

[21]  Note 14 at [38].

[22]  Note 14 at [21]

[23]  For the purposes of part 5 of the QBCC Act, in s 67WA QBCC Act.

[24]  Sections 67WC and 67WD QBCC Act.

[25]  Per s 67Y of the QBCC Act.

[26]  Section 68B QBCC Act.

[27]  Section 68F(3) QBCC Act.

[28]  Schedule 6, Parts 2 and 3, Regulation.

[29]  Schedule 6, Part 1, ss 1(1)-(3).

[30]  Schedule 6, Part 2, s 7(6).

[31]  In particular, in s 15, Part 3, Schedule 16.

[32]  Application filed 27 July 2021, Part C.

[33]  Prepared by Ms Zeng and filed at the hearing on 10 July 2023.

[34]  Marked “Evidence A” to “Evidence E” inclusive.

[35]  QBCC ‘Consequential Damage Inspection Report’ dated 8 May 2018, filed by the Applicant at the hearing on 10 July 2023.

[36]  Ibid.

[37]  Ibid.

[38]  “Evidence E” to Note 1.

[39]  “Evidence D” to Note 1.

[40]  Pursuant to s 68F of the QBCC Act.

[41]  [2020] QCAT 154 at [23]-[24].

[42]  Sections 69(1) and (5), 70(3) QBCC Act.

[43]  SUB-5 to Submissions in Response – Non-Completion Claim Form dated 5 December 2019, p 85 (NB: The Respondent refers to this as SUB-6 at [8] of their submissions, an apparent typographical error).

[44]  SUB-4 to Submissions in Response - Initial Inspection Report dated 16 September 2019.

[45]  SUB-5 to Submissions in Response – Non-Completion Claim Form dated 5 December 2019, p 85

[46]  SUB-4 to Submissions in Response – Initial Inspection Report dated 16 September 2019.

[47]  [2017] QCAT 96.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Zeng v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Zeng v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

  • MNC:

    [2023] QCAT 347

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Younger

  • Date:

    08 Sep 2023

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
Legal Services Commissioner v Leneham [2017] QCAT 96
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2017] QCAT 96
Cite 2 - [2017] QCAT 96
Rajagopal v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2020] QCAT 154
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QCAT 154
Cite 2 - [2020] QCAT 154
Zeng v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2023] QCATA 10
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] QCATA 10
Cite 2 - [2023] QCATA 10

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.