QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Arian v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2020] QCAT 445
PARTIES: YOUNES ARIAN (applicant)
v
QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
GAR176-20
MATTER TYPE:
General administrative review matters
DELIVERED ON:
18 November 2020
HEARING DATE:
On the Papers
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Member Kent
ORDERS: 1. The application for an extension of time filed on 25 June 2020 is refused.
2. The application to review a decision filed on 25 May 2020 is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – TIME, EXTENSION AND ABRIDGMENT – where the applicant filed an application to review a decision out of time – where the applicant filed an application for an extension of time – whether application for an extension of time should be granted.
Reeve v Hamlyn [2015] QCATA 133
Herron v McGregor (1986) 6 NSWLR 246
Brisbane South Regional Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541
Jensen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2017] QCAT 232
Uren v Harcourts Broadbeach Waters [2018] QCATA 9
Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman & Anor [2011] QCAT 229.
Braunberger v Assistant Commissioner Les Hopkins [2014] QCAT 34.
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
Background
On 24 May 2020, the applicant applied to the Tribunal to review an internal review decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) dated 8 April 2020. Section 87 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (‘QBCC Act’) sets out that application may be made to QCAT for a review of that decision, ‘as provided for under the QCAT Act’.
Section 33(3) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) states that the application for review must be filed within 28 days of the ‘relevant day’. For present purposes, the relevant day is the day the applicant was notified of the decision.[1] The applicant states in his application for review that he was notified of the decision by post “around” 15 April 2020 but informed via email earlier than 15 April 2020. He does not specify the date.
[1]QCAT Act, s 33(4)(a).
The application to review was filed in the Tribunal on 25 May 2019, so by the account given by the applicant and based on the most generous calculation of time it was filed at least 10 days late. However, by the applicant’s own admission he was notified via email earlier than 15 April 2020 therefore the application was filed more than 10 days after the permitted time limit. It is clear on either the strictest or the most generous calculation of time that the application was clearly filed outside of the 28-day time limit provided for in section 33(3) of the QCAT Act.
Section 61(1) of the QCAT Act provides that the Tribunal may extend a time limit. The Tribunal issued directions on 12…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Arian v Queensland Building and Construction Commission and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2020] QCAT 445
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the statutory and procedural framework governing the timeliness of filing applications to review decisions. It considered the strict compliance required by the statutory provisions and the discretionary nature of the court's power to extend time. The court also evaluated the applicant's reasons for the delay and the impact of the delay on the opposing party. After careful consideration of the arguments presented, the court concluded that the application for an extension of time should not be granted, as the delay was significant and there were no compelling circumstances to justify an extension.
In light of the court's decision to refuse the application for an extension of time, the application to review the decision filed on 25 May 2020 was dismissed. The court found that the applicant had failed to meet the statutory requirements for timely filing and that the late filing did not warrant an extension of time. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural deadlines and the limited circumstances in which extensions may be granted. Consequently, the application for an extension of time filed on 25 June 2020 was refused, and the application to review the decision was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application for an extension of time filed on 25 June 2020 is refused.
2. The application to review a decision filed on 25 May 2020 is dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.