Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2024
  4. Sear v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2024] QCAT 4

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

Sear v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2024] QCAT 4

Sear v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2024] QCAT 4

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Sear v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2024] QCAT 4

PARTIES:

sandra jane sear

(applicant)

v

queensland Building and construction commission

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR329-21

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

4 January 2024

HEARING DATE:

7 November 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Carrigan

ORDERS:

  1. The Tribunal orders that the decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission made on 4 November 2021 is confirmed.
  2. The Tribunal orders that the Application to review a decision filed in the Tribunal on 1 December 2021 by the Applicant is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LICENSING OR REGULATION OF OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES AND CALLINGS – building certifiers – disciplinary proceedings – where a Level 1 licensed building certifier issued the approval – where the building application contained combustible material prohibited in the construction of a type B building – whether the buildings certifiers conduct constituted “unsatisfactory conduct" – whether a reprimand should have been issued to the building certifier

Building Act 1975 (Qld), s 8, s 9, s 10, s 12, s 13, s 34A(2), s 47, s 48, s 125(2), s 129, s 135(2), s 136(2), s 204(4)(a), s 231AB

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 86(20(a), s 87

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 19, s 21, s 24.

Cowen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission (2017) QCAT 416 at paragraph 18.

Applicant:

Mr M Robinson, solicitor of Robinson Locke Litigation Lawyers.

Respondent:

Mr S Seefeld of Counsel instructed by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission.

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    Sandra Jane Sear (the Applicant) is the holder of a Building Certifier’s Level 1 licence and is authorised to act as a “private certifier”.
  2. [2]
    On 4 November 2021 the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (the Commission) decided that she had, as a certifier, engaged in unsatisfactory conduct in relation to the Certifier’s failure to accurately identify the expanded polystyrene foam (EPS) used as an external cladding on Type B construction.
  3. [3]
    The Commission issued a reprimand of the Applicant because of a breach of s 135(2) of the Building Act 1975 (Qld) (the Building Act) and is in contravention of the Code of Conduct for Building Certifiers specifically standard of conduct and professionalism number three (3).
  4. [4]
    On 1 December 2021 the Applicant filed in the Tribunal an Application to review the decision of the Commission made on 4 November 2021. The grounds relied upon by the Applicant as to why the decision is wrong or not properly made, stated the following;
    1. the decision is wrong in fact as the EPS was identified accurately within the certification documents, with no relevant ambiguity; and
    2. the decision is not warranted in law as the nature of the finding of unsatisfactory conduct requiring reprimand, regarding the degree of identification of the EPS.

Background Facts

  1. [5]
    On 4 May 2021 the Applicant received from a builder an application for building certification services to assess and issue a building approval for a project at 74 Computer Road, Yatala in the State of Queensland.
  2. [6]
    On 25 May 2021 the Applicant discussed with the builder the buildings fire compartment was slightly over 2000 m² floor area which meant that the building was of Type B construction. Apparently the drawings for the project had envisaged that the building would be Type C construction with part of the exterior wall being constructed with expanded polystyrene foam (EPS) as the external cladding.
  3. [7]
    On 31 May 2021 the Applicant “re-assessed” the project including the QFES document and issued the Building Approval for 74 Computer Road, with conditions attached. The Applicant states;[1]

As the change in construction type from C to B had previously been discussed with a builder and the structural design had been provided to meet this and the conditions included that no use of combustible cladding as cladding or external elements was approved then the signed approved documents were considered compliant with the NCC.

At no point was the combustible cladding assessed and approved to be installed on this building, the conditions document excluded this material.

The conditions document is provided to the builder as part of the approved documents, this conditions document is to be read and reviewed by the builder before starting any works. The conditions and any modifications or changes required are therefore the responsibility of the builder to confirm compliance before installing products or a final inspection.

  1. [8]
    On 9 September 2021 the Commission notified the Applicant that it intended to undertake an Assessment Audit of the project at 74 Computer Road, Yatala. In a subsequent exchange of correspondence the Applicant provided various documents to the Commission.
  2. [9]
    An on-site inspection of the project was then arranged for 28 September 2021 at which representatives of the Commission attended as did the Applicant. The project was still under construction at that time. The tilt panels were installed and the builder was installing roof beams. There was no cladding installed and no cladding was visible at that stage of construction.
  3. [10]
    On 29 September 2021 the Applicant received an inspection notice from the Commission requiring the Applicant to review the document and respond as part of the audit process. A further exchange of correspondence occurred between the parties.
  4. [11]
    On 26 October 2021 the Applicant sent to the Commission a detailed response titled “Reply QBCC Inspection Notice”. Further exchanges of correspondence then occurred between the parties.
  5. [12]
    On 4 November 2021 the Applicant received from the Commission an “Information Notice” containing the results of the Assessment Audit advising that the Applicant had engaged in unsatisfactory conduct in relation to a failure to accurately identify expanded polystyrene foam (EPS) used as an external cladding on Type B construction at the 74 Computer Road project and imposed a reprimand on the Applicant pursuant to s 204(4)(a) of the Building Act.

The Tribunal’s Jurisdiction

  1. [13]
    The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is conferred by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act) and the “enabling Act”.[2]
  2. [14]
    The Commission’s decision made on 4 November 2021 was made pursuant to s 204(4) of the Building Act. That decision is a reviewable decision.[3]
  3. [15]
    A person affected by a reviewable decision, such as the Applicant, may apply in accordance with the QCAT Act for a review of the decision by the Tribunal.[4] In these proceedings  the QBCC Act is the “enabling Act” for the purposes of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
  4. [16]
    The Tribunal is to review the Commission’s decision by way of a fresh hearing on the merits and is to produce the correct and preferable decision.[5] The Applicant is not required to identify any error in the Commission’s decision.[6]
  5. [17]
    The material before the Tribunal includes the material that was before the Commission on which it based its decision which is the subject of this review.[7]

The Conduct of Building Certifier’s is regulated by the Building Act

  1. [18]
    Chapter 6 of the Building Act regulates private certifiers and the performance of building and private certifying functions. The Building Act defines who is a “building certifier” and the functions of a “private certifier”.[8] None of those concepts are controversial in these proceedings.
  2. [19]
    The Building Act provides for who is a building certifier and their functions.[9] So far as is relevant in these proceedings, the Code establishes the following obligations;
    1. by clause 1 “a building certifier must perform building certification functions in the public interest.”; and
    2. by clause 3 “A building certifier must comply with legislative requirements” that regulate or govern building certifiers in the performance of building certifying functions.
  3. [20]
    An occasion identified in the Building Act where a private certifier does not act in the public interest includes the following;[10]
    1. contravenes the code of conduct.
  4. [21]
    The National Construction Code (NCC) is the Building Code of Australia.[11] It relevantly provides as follows;[12]
  5. (a)
    in a building required to be of Type A or B construction, the following building elements and their components must be non-combustible:
  6. (i)
    External walls and common walls including all compartments incorporated in them including the façade covering, framing and insulation.
  7. [22]
    The NCC also provides that certain specified ancillary elements must not be fixed, installed or attached to the internal parts or external parts of an external wall which is required to be non-combustible.[13]
  8. [23]
    The Building Act also provides for the Queensland Development Code (QDC) and which is prescribed by regulation.[14] The QDC prohibits the use of expanded polystyrene products in an external insulation and finish in class 2-9 buildings of Type A and Type B construction.[15]
  9. [24]
    The classification of Type A, B or C buildings is contained in the Building Act.[16] In these proceedings it is not controversial that the fire compartment or atrium in the project at 74 Computer Road to be certified by the Applicant had an area in excess of 2000 m² and came within the classification of a Type B construction.

The Applicant’s Decision to provide Certification for the Building

  1. [25]
    The Applicant’s decision of 31 May 2021 to certify the project at 74 Computer Road, Yatala consisted of the following documents (total of 17 pages);
    1. the Decision Notice – Approval – 210061;
    2. the Development Application Assessment; and
    3. the Conditions of Approval.
  2. [26]
    The Decision Notice said that the development application was;

APPROVED IN FULL

APPROVED IN FULL WITH CONDITIONS.

The conditions were identified as those set out in Attachment 1 and the Decision Notice also specified that;

The condition show which conditions have been imposed by the assessment manager and which conditions have been imposed by a referral agency.

  1. [27]
    The Conditions of Approval contain 45 conditions. Condition 37 specified the following;

WALL CLADDING

Buildings in Type A and Type B construction must have external walls of non-combustible construction including all components incorporated in the including façade covering, framing and insulation. Gaskets, caulking, sealants and damp approved courses may be combustible.

Condition 38 of the approval referred to the ancillary elements to external walls as follows;

ANCILLARY ELEMENTS TO EXTERNAL WALLS

Where an external wall is required to be non-combustible then the ancillary element attached to the wall which includes sunshades, louvres, awnings, architectural mouldings for decorative purposes and signs must be non-combustible unless it meets one of the following specified descriptions.

The Issues Raised by the Applicant to Review the Commissioners Decision

  1. [28]
    As has already been earlier referred to, the Applicant contends that the Commissioner made errors of fact and/or errors of law in its decision. The Applicant also refers to the following issues;[17]
  2. (a)
    The Building Approval clearly stated that it excludes the use of combustible cladding;
  3. (b)
    the process adopted by the Applicant is consistent with;
  4. (i)
    statute;
  5. (ii)
    usual practice for certifiers;
  6. (iii)
    the usual process of certifiers and Building Approval is well-known by, and complied with, builders.
  7. [29]
    The primary submission is that the Building Approval excludes the use of combustible material means, that in concept and also in practice, that;
    1. the builder constructs according to the Building Approval which was approved subject to conditions;
    2. the Building Approval accepted the plans - but subject to the conditions;
    3. as the builder is to construct the Building Approval, the conditions take precedence over the plans;
    4. as such, the builder will construct according to the plans, as controlled and limited by the conditions. Throughout a building process commonly different revisions of plans are created. However, throughout the process the Building Approval remains a reference document.
  8. [30]
    The Applicant states in relation to the building having a fire compartment slightly over 2000 m²; 

this then required that the building must be approved and built as type B construction and not type C construction as originally planned. Which requires different FRL’s on the walls and that the non-combustible cladding conditions would also apply. The thickness of the concrete panels to meet the FRL of the walls was confirmed and structural drawings were provided and checked.

After receiving the additional information from QFES, the project was assessed as a class 7b/8 warehouse building, 2 story, with office and a mezzanine storage use area, requiring Type B construction. This included a list of specific conditions relevant to this project, of importance are the following conditions:

…

(d)  37.0 Wall Cladding

Buildings in Type A & Type B construction must have external walls of non- combustible construction including all components incorporated including façade covering, framing and insulation. Gaskets, caulking, sealants and dampproof courses may be combustible.

  1. [31]
    The Applicant acknowledges that the relevant substance of the QDC and of Building Approvals is to the effect that combustible cladding is prohibited on a Type B building. The Applicant says that the builder involved with this project was experienced however there are conversations in which he confirmed he knew that combustible cladding could not be used. The Applicant also confirms that the EPS foam was not installed in the building at 74 Computer Road, Yatala.
  2. [32]
    The Applicant also submits it is unreasonable and contrary to industry practice for a building certifier to demand amended plans. The submission is made;[18]

it is neither legislated or written anywhere that the submitted plans must wholly comply with every provision of legislation. The legislation outlines that as part of the certifying functions a building certifier may use discretion and impose their own conditions.

It is unreasonable when considering a new building approval, not to consider the time, complexity and cost that would be involved for both builder and the client, when ultimately NBN the impose conditions will be, and later have been, complied with. There is no EPS foam on this building; the builder has complied with the impose conditions.

  1. [33]
    The Applicant relies on a number of witnesses who are, or are retired, building certifiers and who have been asked to consider the relevant certification procedure.[19] For example, Keith Raymond Thomas, a retired building certifier, discusses the formal building approval issued under the Building Act as per part 5. He says under that part approval is required to have conditions of building development that impose restrictions and obligations of the building development approval. He also states;

It has been common practice, as I acted as a Private Building certifier, to impose conditions on building development approvals that ensure the building during construction and upon completion conforms to the Building Assessment Provisions as specified in the Building Act.

  1. [34]
    The Commissioners submissions are that as this project was identified as a Type B construction the private certifier, such as the Applicant must comply with the building assessment provisions. The approval demonstrates there is non-compliance in relation to;[20]
    1. the provisions of QDC which prohibit the use of expanded polystyrene product in external insulation and finish;
    2. the Applicant did not identify that EPS should not have been used as an external cladding;
    3. the Applicant did not comply with NCC at C1.9 and C1.14
    4. the Applicant did not comply with s 135(2) of the Building Act;
    5. and pursuant to section 34A(2) of the Building Act, the Applicant was only authorised to approve the application if the if the Applicant was satisfied the application complied with the building assessment provisions; and

as there was non-compliance with the building assessment provisions, the Applicant should not have approved the plans.

  1. [35]
    The Commissioner submits that the above breaches establish that the Applicant was in breach of the “Code of Conduct for Building Certifiers” in respect of the following item;

Item 3. A building certifier must comply with legislative requirements.

A building certifier must comply with the list of requirements that regulate or govern building certifiers in the performance of building certifying functions.

  1. [36]
    The Commissioner also relies upon item 1 of the Code of Conduct which requires a building certifier to perform building certifying functions in the public interest. The specific terms of that item in the Code are as follows;

A building certifier must perform building certifying functions in the public interest and must not take action that would compromise the health and safety of any person was significantly conflicted with a local planning scheme.

  1. [37]
    The Commissioner also submits that the approval provided by the Applicant demonstrates that the applicant was ‘mistakenly satisfied that the application complied with the building assessment provisions…” contrary to the provisions in s 34A(2) of the Building Act.
  2. [38]
    The Commission also submits that the stamped approved building application plans demonstrate a lack of compliance with the building assessment provisions in s 30 of the Building Act as the requirements in QDC MP2.5 expressly prohibits EPS on Type B constructions.
  3. [39]
    The Commission also relies upon the following statement by the Applicant in the “Reply to BCC Inspection Notice” at page 8 where the Applicant states as follows;

The builder has acknowledged the conditions in the building approval in regard to the foam wall cladding and the firm surrounds on the windows that are shown on the original plans and the builder is sourcing material that will meet the requirements of AS 1530.1. This will be inspected at the time of final inspection and compliance certificates for materials will need to be provided.

  1. [40]
    The Commissioner asserts that this statement by the Applicant confirms that the Applicant approved the use of the EPS which is in breach of s 135(2) of the Building Act, the BCA, the QDC and the code of conduct and’s that subsequently, pursuant to the QBCC Audit, became aware of that mistake.
  2. [41]
    The Commissioner says that the breaches identified in the above submissions by the Applicant’s building approval of drawings which contained prohibited combustible material;

demonstrated conduct that ‘is of a lesser standard than the standard that might reasonably be expected of the building certifier by the public or the building certifier’s professional peers as stated in the definition of “Unsatisfactory Conduct”.[21]

Was the Applicant’s Conduct Unsatisfactory?

  1. [42]
    The Building Act provides that after conducting an audit, QBCC is to decide whether or not the building certifier has engaged in unsatisfactory conduct.[22] It further provides that in the event that there has been unsatisfactory conduct, QBCC must decide whether to impose a reprimand or take other steps as provided in the Building Act.
  2. [43]
    The term “Unsatisfactory Conduct” is defined in Schedule 2 of the Building Act in these terms;
  1. For a building certifier or former building certifier, includes the following-
  1. (a)
    conduct that shows incompetence, or a lack of adequate knowledge, skill, judgement, integrity, diligence or care in performing building all private certifying functions;
  1. (b)
    conduct that is contrary to a function under this Act or another Act regulating building certifier’s (including private certifiers for building work), including, for example-
  1. (iv)
    contravening the code of conduct;
  1. (c)
    conduct that is of a lesser standard than the standard that might reasonably be expected of a building certifier by the public or the building certifier is professional peers.
  1. [44]
    While a Building Certifier is required to act in the public interest, one of the ways in which a certifier does not act in the public interest is where they contravene the Code of Conduct.[23]
  2. [45]
    The evidence before the Tribunal establishes that the building plans identified the use of expanded foam cladding (at the North and East elevations on Drawing sheet #A300/Phase BA/Revision A/dated05/05/21) for the construction of the building at 74 Computer Road, Yatala. This was known to the Applicant at the time the approval was issued.
  3. [46]
    These circumstances demonstrated that the Applicant was required to comply with the building assessment provisions.[24] Those provisions which included the QDC prohibited the use of expanded polystyrene products in the external insulation and finish for this project at 74 Computer Road, Yatala. The Applicant in the circumstances did not comply with section 135(2) of the Building Act.
  4. [47]
    Also, the Applicant was required to comply with the NCC provisions in Parts C1.9 and C1.14. The former Part required that there be non-combustible material for external walls and common walls including all components incorporated including the façade covering, framing and insulation. The Applicant was required to comply with those requirements. As well, Part C1.14 required that any cladding used is non-combustible. The EPS included in the approved plans were accordingly not to be fixed, installed or attached to external face of an external wall of this project. The approved plans were non-compliant with the building assessment provisions.
  5. [48]
    The Applicant’s case is that she gave an Approval subject to conditions. The Applicant says that the approval was subject to conditions 37 and 38 which prohibited combustible material being used on the external walls of the building. According to the Applicant’s case it is very evident that she was aware at all material times the building application did not comply with the building assessment process because of the use of combustible material in a Type B construction. It is also evident that the Applicant must have known, or should have known, that she “must” comply with the building assessment provisions required by s 135(2) of the Building Act. The Applicant gave an approval in circumstances where there was non-compliance. Further, the Applicant must have known, or should have known, that she “must” approve the application if she is satisfied that the building development application complies with the building assessment provisions. On the evidence before the Tribunal in these proceedings the Applicant could not have been “satisfied” to any relevant degree about compliance with the building assessment provisions. Notwithstanding, the Applicant knew of the non-compliance with the building assessment provisions the Applicant proceeded to approve the application. The Tribunal finds that the actions of the Applicant in approving the application were contrary to the provisions of the Building Act, and were also contrary to the relevant provisions already referred to in the NCC and the QDC. The actions of the Applicant constitute conduct that includes the following;
    1. conduct that shows a lack of adequate knowledge, such skill, judgement, diligence or care in performing building or private certifying functions; and
    2. conduct that is contrary to the functions under the Building Act or another act regulating building serve certifiers and in particular contravening the code of conduct;

as stated in the definition of “Unsatisfactory Conduct” in the Building Act.

  1. [49]
    The Applicant has provided evidence from several building certifiers or retired certifiers as to the practice in the industry. None of those witnesses discuss the issue that arises in these proceedings where a building application is presented with combustible material to be used in the construction of the external walls of a Type B building. Rather, their evidence generalises about industry practice and the provision of conditions without in any way addressing the current issue that is before the Tribunal. The Tribunal does not find that those witness statements are of any assistance in the determination of these proceedings. The Tribunal gives little weight to the evidence of those witnesses.
  2. [50]
    The Applicant has placed great significance on the “Conditions of Approval” and in particular conditions 37 and 38. The terms of conditions 37 and 38 are a restatement of provisions that already existed in the Building Act, the QDC and the NCC. The conditions did not contain any categorical statement that this project is a Type B construction and that combustible material is prohibited. Rather conditions 37 and 38 left it open to the builder (or worse, site personnel) to interpret those conditions and to determine what type of building was being constricted, such as type A or B or C, and whether, or not, combustible material could. or should not, be used. The Applicant appears in both these conditions to have delegated that responsibility to the builder to identify the “Type” of buildings in the approved drawings and for the builder to then apply the provisions of the building assessment process rather than have a clear statement by the Applicant that;
    1. the building plans for this project were for a Type “B” construction; and
    2. the existing plans required combustible material for external walls; and
    3. that the use of combustible material was prohibited on the external walls of this project.
  3. [51]
    When the “Conditions of Approval” are viewed in their entirety (viz all 45 conditions) they appear to be of a generic form and to have application to any particular building site and do not appear to be site specific to the project at 74  Computer Road, Yatala. Even assuming for the moment (as contended for by the several witnesses who are buildings certifiers, or retired) that the Applicant was entitled to give a conditional approval, the Tribunal is not satisfied in the circumstances that the appropriate and specifically site directed conditions were given in respect of the project at 74 Computer Road, Yatala. The conditions attached to the approval were clearly insufficient to properly and satisfactorily condition any relevant approval. The Tribunal rejects the Applicant’s submissions relation relating to her giving appropriate conditional approval as claimed in these proceedings. In the circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that the conduct of the Applicant included the following;

conduct that is of a lesser standard than the standard that might reasonably expected of a building certifier by the public or the building certifier’s professional peers.

  1. [52]
    What was the Applicant to do when considering the approved plans for a Type B construction containing EPS material. The answer to that issue is contained in s 34A(2) of the Building Act which is in these terms;

If the assessment manager for a building development application is satisfied the application complies with the building assessment provisions, the assessment manager must approve the application.

  1. [53]
    In these proceedings, the Applicant as the “assessment manager” could not have been satisfied the application complied with the building assessment provisions. The Applicant knew at all material times that the application did not comply because of the type of building and the use of the EPS. The Applicant, with knowledge of the relevant non-compliance with the building assessment provisions, was not in a position to approve the application and even with her grant of approval the conditions provided were insufficient.
  2. [54]
    The Commission in its submissions to the Tribunal having referred to QDC clause 5(2) which does not permit the use of expanded polystyrene product for construction of any external wall of a Type B building stated as follows;[25]

Clause5(2) prevents an application for building work under the Building Act 1975 being approved where the product is used in the above circumstances.

  1. [55]
    The Applicant’s submissions overlook the express words of s 34A(2) of the Building Act. The Applicant issued an approval notwithstanding that she knew that the approved plans did not comply with the building assessment provisions. The attempt to then “condition” the approval does not overcome her obligation to issue the approval only if satisfied the application complies with the building assessment provisions.
  2. [56]
    Accordingly, the evidence is that the approval was given by the Applicant in circumstances where there was a failure to comply with the legislative requirements in the QDC,[26] the NCC[27] s 34A of the Building Act. As a consequence the Tribunal finds that the Applicant has contravened the Code of Conduct in that contrary to;
    1. Item 1 of the code - the Applicant failed to perform building certifying functions in the public interest; and
    2. Item 3 failed to comply with the legislative requirements.
  3. [57]
    In these circumstances in terms of the definition of “Unsatisfactory Conduct”, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s conduct in approving the building plans for the project at 74 Computer Road, Yatala, was contrary to the following provisions in the definition of ‘Unsatisfactory Conduct” in Schedule 2 to the Building Act;
    1. conduct which shows a lack of adequate knowledge, skill, judgement diligence or care in performing building or private certifying functions;
    2. conduct that is contrary to the code of conduct;
    3. conduct of a lesser standard than the standard expected of a building certifier by the public or by the building certifier’s professional peers.
  4. [58]
    The Commission was, in the circumstances in these proceedings, entitled to issue a reprimand to the Applicant.
  5. [59]
    In the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant has engaged in unsatisfactory conduct and that the decision of the Commissioner made on 4 November 2021 is confirmed.

Orders

  1. [60]
    The Tribunal orders that the decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission made on 4 November 2021 is confirmed.
  2. [61]
    The Tribunal orders that the Application to review a decision filed in the Tribunal on 1 December 2021 by the Applicant is dismissed.

Footnotes

[1]  Affidavit of Sandra Jane Sear at paragraph 24.

[2]  QCAT Act s 19.

[3]  QBCC Act s 86(2)(a).

[4]  QBCC Act s 87.

[5]  QCAT act s 20.

[6]Cowen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission (2017) QCAT 416 at paragraph 18.

[7]  QCAT Act s 21.

[8]  Building Act s 8, s 9, s 10, s 47 – 48.

[9]  Building Act s 129.

[10]  Building Act s 136.

[11]  Building act s 12.

[12]  Building code of Australian, Volume 1 2019, Amendment 1, at para C1.9.

[13]  Above note 13 at para C1.14.

[14]  Building Act s 13.

[15]  QDC Part 2.5.

[16]  Building Acts 231AB, Schedule 2.

[17]  Affidavit of Sandra Jane Sear filed 22 August 2022 at paragraph 105 and 106.

[18]  Affidavit of Sandra Jane Sear filed 22 August 2022 at paragraph 116.

[19]  Statement of Keith Raymond Thomas of 13 June 2022, Kim Pound of 14 June 2022 and the Kenneth Edward Murray 13 June 2022.

[20]  Statement of Reasons for the Decision filed by the Commission on 14 February 2022 at paragraph 71.

[21]  Building Act Schedule 2 definition of "Unsatisfactory Conduct".

[22]  Building Act s 204.

[23]  Building Act s 136(2).

[24]  Building Act s 125(2).

[25]  Statement of reasons filed by the Commission on 14 February 2022 at paragraph 30.

[26]  QDC MP 2.5, chapter 1 part 2.

[27]  NCC parts C!.9 and C1.14.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Sear v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Sear v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

  • MNC:

    [2024] QCAT 4

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Carrigan

  • Date:

    04 Jan 2024

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
Cowen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2017] QCAT 416
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2017] QCAT 416
Cite 2 - [2017] QCAT 416

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.