Bace Investments Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

Case [2025] QCAT 442

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Bace Investments Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2025] QCAT 442

PARTIES:
BACE INVESTMENTS PTY LTD

(applicant)

v
QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

GAR299-24

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

6 November 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Scott-Mackenzie

ORDERS:

1.     The application by Queensland Building and Construction Commission filed 22 November 2024 to dismiss the proceeding is granted.

2.     The proceeding is dismissed.

3.     Any application for costs in the proceeding be filed in the Tribunal and given to the other party by email, by:

4:00pm on 1 December 2025.

4.     A reply to any application for costs in the proceeding be filed in the Tribunal and given to the other party by email, by:

4:00pm on 12 January 2026.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where applicant applied to dismiss the proceeding – whether the internal review decision is reviewable – whether the application lacks utility – whether the application for external review should be dismissed

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 72, s 72A, s 75, s 77, s 86, s 86A, s 86B, s 86C, s 86D, s 86E, s 111C, sch 1B, s 4

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 17, s 18, s 20, s 21, s 24, s 47

ACN 148 877 525 Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2022] QCAT 72

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33
Body Corporate for Parkside Bulimba CTS46539 v Queensland Building and Construction Commission & Anor [2024] QCATA 109
Body Corporate for Jade Apartments CTS40720 v Lee Crocker v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2020] QSC 24
Fraser Property Developments Pty Ltd v Sommerfeld (No. 1) [2005] QCA 134
Jorg & Anor v Queensland Building and Construction Commission & Anor [2021] QCATA 134
JM Kelly (Project Builders) Pty Ltd v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCAT 502
Queensland Building and Construction Commission v B & L Constructions Qld Pty Ltd [2023] QCATA 71
Stephenson v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2017] QCAT 212
Tanna v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2023] QCATA 81
TCQ Pty Ltd ATF Midgley Family Trust v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2023] QCAT 485
The Body Corporate for Jade Apartments CTS 40720 v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2016] QCAT 445

Vytla v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2024] QCAT 346

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Application

  1. On 22 November 2024 the respondent (‘Commission’) made application to the Tribunal to dismiss the proceeding under section 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) (‘interlocutory application’). It filed written submissions in support of the application.

  2. The applicant (‘Bace Investments’) filed written submissions in reply to the application.

Issues

  1. The central…

Continue reading Bace Investments Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construct...

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Bace Investments Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2025] QCAT 442
Case
[2025] QCAT 442
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bace Investments Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission involved an application by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) to dismiss the proceeding, which was brought by Bace Investments against the QBCC. The dispute centred on whether the internal review decision made by the QBCC was reviewable and if the application for external review should be dismissed on grounds of lack of utility. The matter was heard and determined by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT).

The primary legal issues the court needed to decide were whether the internal review decision by the QBCC was reviewable and if the application for external review had any utility. The court examined the definitions and provisions of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act) and the Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (QBCC Act). The court also considered whether the proceeding was frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, lacking in substance, or an abuse of process under the QCAT Act.

The court found that the internal review decision was not reviewable under the provisions of the QCAT Act and the QBCC Act, as it was not a reviewable decision within the meaning of the relevant statutes. Furthermore, the court concluded that the application lacked utility as it was not based on a reviewable decision. The court exercised its power under the QCAT Act to dismiss the proceeding for being lacking in substance and an abuse of process. The court found that the application for external review did not meet the statutory requirements and therefore was unjustified.

The court ordered that the application by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission to dismiss the proceeding was granted. The proceeding was dismissed, and any application for costs was to be filed in the Tribunal and served on the other party by email by specified deadlines.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application by Queensland Building and Construction Commission filed 22 November 2024 to dismiss the proceeding is granted.

2. The proceeding is dismissed.

3. Any application for costs in the proceeding be filed in the Tribunal and given to the other party by email, by:

4:00pm on 1 December 2025.

4. A reply to any application for costs in the proceeding be filed in the Tribunal and given to the other party by email, by:

4:00pm on 12 January 2026.

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

Reviewable decision is defined in section 86E of the QBCC Act. It means:(a) a reviewable decision within the meaning of subdivision 1, other than a decision that was the subject of an internal review under subdivision 1; or(b) an internal review decision within the meaning of subdivision 1. The Tribunal’s review jurisdiction is provided for in division 3 of part 1 of chapter 2 of the QCAT Act. Section 17, under the heading ‘Generally’, provides:(1) The tribunal’s review jurisdiction is the jurisdiction conferred on the tribunal by an enabling Act to review a decision made or taken to have been made by another entity under that Act.(2) For this Act, a decision mentioned in subsection (1) is a reviewable decision and the entity that made or is taken to have made the decision is the decision-maker for the reviewable decision. When the review jurisdiction is exercised is provided for in section 18 of the QCAT Act. It is in the following terms:(1) The tribunal may exercise its review jurisdiction if a person has, under this Act, applied to the tribunal to exercise its review jurisdiction for a reviewable decision.(2) A person may apply to the tribunal to exercise its review jurisdiction for a reviewable decision, and the tribunal may deal with the application, even if the decision is also the subject of a complaint, preliminary inquiry or investigation under the Ombudsman Act 2001. A review involves a fresh hearing.[3] Section 21 contains provisions requiring a decision-maker to help the Tribunal.[3]QCAT Act s 20. The functions for the review jurisdiction are provided for in section 24. Subsections (1) and (2) provide:(1) In a proceeding for a review of a reviewable decision, the tribunal may:(a)confirm or amend the decision; or(b)set aside the decision and substitute its own decision; or(c)set aside the decision and return the matter for reconsideration to the decision-maker for the decision, with the directions the tribunal considers appropriate.(2) The tribunal’s decision under subsection (1)(a) or (b) for a reviewable decision:(a)is taken to be a decision of the decision-maker for the reviewable decision except for the tribunal’s review jurisdiction or an appeal under part 8; and(b)subject to any contrary order of the tribunal, has effect from when the reviewable decision takes or took effect. The Tribunal is given power to dismiss, strike out and decide if a proceeding, or part, is unjustified. Sections 47(1) and (2) relevantly provide:(1) This section applies if the tribunal considers a proceeding or a part of a proceeding is:(a)frivolous, vexatious or misconceived; or(b)lacking in substance; or(c)otherwise an abuse of process.(2) The tribunal may:(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(b)for a part of a proceeding brought before the tribunal by a party other than the applicant for the proceeding—(i)make its final decision in the proceeding in the applicant’s favour; or(ii)order that the party who brought the part before the tribunal be removed from the proceeding; or(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.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.