Blundell v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2018] QSC 58

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Blundell v Queensland Building and Construction Commission and others [2018] QSC 58

PARTIES:

JASMIN MAREE BLUNDELL

(applicant)

v
QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION
(first respondent)
DARRYL HATHWAY PAINTING & DECORATING PTY LTD
(second respondent)
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

(third respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 12203 of 2017

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 March 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 January 2018

JUDGE:

Martin J

ORDER:

1. The Application for a statutory order of review is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – REVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCT – EXISTENCE OF OTHER REVIEW OR APPEAL RIGHTS – where applicant engaged second respondent to do work – where applicant, dissatisfied with said work, purported to terminate contract on basis of second respondent’s default – where applicant also made non-completion claim to first respondent – where decisions were subsequently made by the first respondent in relation to the claim about scope of works – where the applicant sought statutory order of review of those decisions – where the first respondent brought cross-application for an order dismissing the application under s 13 of Judicial Review Act 1991 – whether the application for statutory order of review should be dismissed – whether the application for statutory order of review is under ss 20-22 or 43 of Judicial Review Act 1991 – whether the application for statutory order of review is in relation to a reviewable matter – whether there is provision under another law which entitles the applicant to seek review by another court, tribunal, authority or person – whether it is in the interests of justice to dismiss the application – whether, in determining if it is in the interests of justice to dismiss the application, there exists a public interest – whether, in determining if it is in the interests of justice to dismiss the application, the quantum involved requires another jurisdiction to resolve the dispute

Judicial Review Act 1991
Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009
Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991

BHP Billiton Ltd v Schultz (2004) 221 CLR 400
Fletcher & Ors v Fortress Credit Corporation (Australia II Pty Ltd) [2012] QSC 359
Nelson v Q-Comp [2004] QSC 167
Stubberfield v Webster [1996] 2 Qd R 211
Turner v Valuer’s Registration Committee of Queensland [2001] 2 Qd R 100

COUNSEL:

J A Lovel (Solicitor) for the applicant
S Moody for the first respondent

B Long (Solicitor) for the second respondent

SOLICITORS:

Byrne & Lovel Lawyers for the applicant
Queensland Building and Construction Commission for the first respondent

Celtic Legal for the second respondent

In March 2017 the applicant engaged Darryl Hathway Painting & Decorating Pty Ltd (DHPD) to paint her house at Bulimba. Her dissatisfaction with the work which was performed led to a decision by the first respondent (QBCC). The applicant seeks to review that decision under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (JR Act). QBCC has brought a cross-application for an order under…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Blundell 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] QSC 58
Decision Date: 23 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Blundell v Queensland Building and Construction Commission involved a dispute between the applicant, Blundell, and the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (the Commission). The applicant, Blundell, engaged a contractor to carry out certain works, but was dissatisfied with the outcome. As a result, Blundell purported to terminate the contract on the grounds of the contractor's default. Additionally, Blundell made a non-completion claim to the Commission. The Commission subsequently made decisions relating to the scope of works in connection with the claim. Dissatisfied with these decisions, Blundell sought a statutory order of review of the Commission's decisions under the Judicial Review Act 1991. The Commission, in turn, filed a cross-application for an order dismissing Blundell's application under section 13 of the same Act.

The central legal issues in the case revolved around the scope of the Commission's decisions and whether they were subject to review under the Judicial Review Act 1991. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the application for a statutory order of review was governed by sections 20-22 or section 43 of the Act, and whether the application related to a reviewable matter. Moreover, the court needed to consider whether there was another legal avenue available to Blundell for review by another court, tribunal, authority, or person. The court also had to assess whether it was in the interests of justice to dismiss the application, taking into account factors such as the existence of a public interest and the quantum of the dispute.

The court held that the application for a statutory order of review should be dismissed. The court found that the application was governed by sections 20-22 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 and not section 43. It was determined that the Commission's decisions were not reviewable matters under the Act, as there was another legal avenue available to Blundell for review. Additionally, the court concluded that it was in the interests of justice to dismiss the application, considering the existence of a public interest and the need for another jurisdiction to resolve the dispute. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for a statutory order of review.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Application for a statutory order of review 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:	Blundell v Queensland Building and Construction Commission and others [2018] QSC 58
PARTIES:	JASMIN MAREE BLUNDELL (applicant) v QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION (first respondent) DARRYL HATHWAY PAINTING & DECORATING PTY LTD (second respondent) QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (third respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS No 12203 of 2017
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	23 March 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 January 2018
JUDGE:	Martin J
ORDER:	1. The Application for a statutory order of review is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – REVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCT – EXISTENCE OF OTHER REVIEW OR APPEAL RIGHTS – where applicant engaged second respondent to do work – where applicant, dissatisfied with said work, purported to terminate contract on basis of second respondent’s default – where applicant also made non-completion claim to first respondent – where decisions were subsequently made by the first respondent in relation to the claim about scope of works – where the applicant sought statutory order of review of those decisions – where the first respondent brought cross-application for an order dismissing the application under s 13 of Judicial Review Act 1991 – whether the application for statutory order of review should be dismissed – whether the application for statutory order of review is under ss 20-22 or 43 of Judicial Review Act 1991 – whether the application for statutory order of review is in relation to a reviewable matter – whether there is provision under another law which entitles the applicant to seek review by another court, tribunal, authority or person – whether it is in the interests of justice to dismiss the application – whether, in determining if it is in the interests of justice to dismiss the application, there exists a public interest – whether, in determining if it is in the interests of justice to dismiss the application, the quantum involved requires another jurisdiction to resolve the dispute Judicial Review Act 1991 Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 BHP Billiton Ltd v Schultz (2004) 221 CLR 400 Fletcher & Ors v Fortress Credit Corporation (Australia II Pty Ltd) [2012] QSC 359 Nelson v Q-Comp [2004] QSC 167 Stubberfield v Webster [1996] 2 Qd R 211 Turner v Valuer’s Registration Committee of Queensland [2001] 2 Qd R 100
COUNSEL:	J A Lovel (Solicitor) for the applicant S Moody for the first respondent B Long (Solicitor) for the second respondent
SOLICITORS:	Byrne & Lovel Lawyers for the applicant Queensland Building and Construction Commission for the first respondent Celtic Legal for the second respondent