Austin v One Off Projects - [2018] QCAT 326

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Austin & Anor v One Off Projects & Anor [2018] QCAT 326

PARTIES:

KATE AUSTIN

(first applicant)

BRADLEY EVANS
(second applicant)

v

ONE OFF PROJECTS

(first respondent)

JON REID

(second respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO60255-17

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

28^th September 2018

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Howe

ORDERS:

It is confirmed that minor civil dispute MCDO60255-17 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – MOTIONS, INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS AND OTHER PRE-TRIAL MATTERS – where building dispute commenced as minor civil proceeding – where parties did not comply with requirement to attempt resolution through a process established by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission – where no jurisdiction in the Tribunal without that process attempted prior to application to the Tribunal – where proceedings dismissed because of perceived failure to comply with a time limit to file material – where evidence was filed within time but no sufficient evidence to establish the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to consider the dispute between the parties

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 77(1), s 77(2)

REPRESENTATION:

Applicants:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

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

The applicants filed a minor civil dispute – minor debt application in the Tribunal seeking recovery of the sum of $3,575 from the respondents (the applicants did not make clear which entity or entities contracted with them) who performed some pre-construction soil testing and preliminary site work for them in anticipation of building them a home.
The construction did not proceed and the applicants sought to recover some of the money they had spent on the preliminary site work from the builder.
The matter was listed before Justices of the Peace for hearing on 5 June 2018. The Justices of the Peace determined that the matter was a building dispute and that it should be more appropriately referred to the building list in the Tribunal.
The matter was put before me on 11 June 2018 to consider and approve, if appropriate, for transfer to the building list. The disagreement between the parties was clearly a building dispute as work associated with the erection or construction of a detached dwelling.[1] There was no evidence that the parties had complied with the statutory requirements under s 77 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld).
[1]Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), Schedule 2, definitions of building dispute, domestic building dispute and reviewable domestic building work and the definition domestic building work under Schedule 1B section 4
By s 77:
Tribunal may decide building dispute
(1) A person involved in a building dispute may apply, as provided under the QCAT Act, to the tribunal to have the tribunal decide the dispute.
(2) However, the person may not apply to the tribunal unless…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Austin v One Off Projects

Details

AGLC: Austin v One Off Projects [2018] QCAT 326
Case: [2018] QCAT 326
Decision Date: 28th September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Austin initiated proceedings against One Off Projects in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The dispute arose from a building contract, where the parties contested issues related to the quality of workmanship and the alleged failure to complete the project within the agreed timeframe. The case was initially commenced as a minor civil proceeding in QCAT but was dismissed due to non-compliance with procedural requirements set by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the dispute given that the parties had not attempted to resolve the matter through a process established by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission prior to filing the application with the Tribunal. Additionally, the court had to determine if the dismissal was justified due to the perceived failure to comply with a time limit to file material, despite the evidence being submitted within the stipulated time.

The court reasoned that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute since the mandatory pre-application resolution process had not been attempted as required by law. Furthermore, the court held that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the dispute. Consequently, the proceedings were dismissed. The court confirmed the dismissal of the minor civil dispute MCDO60255-17.

Orders

Orders of the court

It is confirmed that minor civil dispute MCDO60255-17 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.

CITATION:	Austin & Anor v One Off Projects & Anor [2018] QCAT 326
PARTIES:	KATE AUSTIN (first applicant) BRADLEY EVANS (second applicant)
v
ONE OFF PROJECTS (first respondent) JON REID (second respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	MCDO60255-17
MATTER TYPE:	Other minor civil dispute matters
DELIVERED ON:	28^th September 2018
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Howe
ORDERS:	It is confirmed that minor civil dispute MCDO60255-17 is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – MOTIONS, INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS AND OTHER PRE-TRIAL MATTERS – where building dispute commenced as minor civil proceeding – where parties did not comply with requirement to attempt resolution through a process established by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission – where no jurisdiction in the Tribunal without that process attempted prior to application to the Tribunal – where proceedings dismissed because of perceived failure to comply with a time limit to file material – where evidence was filed within time but no sufficient evidence to establish the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to consider the dispute between the parties Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 77(1), s 77(2)
REPRESENTATION:
Applicants:	Self-represented
Respondent:	Self-represented
APPEARANCES:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).