Brennan v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

Link copied
Case Copied 18 min read

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Brennan v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2024] QCAT 37

PARTIES:

WAYNE BRENNAN

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTIN COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR341-22

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

19 January 2024

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Richard Oliver

ORDERS:

1.     The application to review a decision filed on 23 August 2022 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – PROCEDURE – LIMITATION ON COMMENCEMENT OF REVIEW APPLICATON – STRIKE OUT – where the respondent made a decision to issue a scope of works to respondent – where any review of the decision in respect of a scope of works must be filed within 28 days of receipt of the decision – where the applicant emailed the application to review a decision to the Tribunal on the 28th day – where the Tribunal processed the decision and date stamped and applied the Tribunal’s seal on the the application to review the day after it was received by the Tribunal – whether the date of filing the application was the date the application was stamped and the seal applied – whether the application was filed within the 28 day limitation.

Acts Interpretation Act1954 (Qld), s 38

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld), s 3, s 28, s 33, s 36, s 61, s 63, s 225.
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld), r 24, r 31
Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act1991 (Qld), s 86, s 86F

Statutory Instruments Act1992 (Qld), s 7

Bowie v Gala [2023] QCATA 129.

Queensland Building and Construction Commission v

Cocker [2018] QCAT 194

Vignes v Clarke (1990) 2 Qd R 593

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. The applicant represents Brennan Clan Pty Ltd, a construction company (‘the builder’), who undertook the construction of a residential dwelling for the owners at Jubilee Heights in north Queensland. After moving into the property, the owners noticed some defects with the building works and made a complaint to the respondent (‘the Commission’).

  2. After inspecting the defects the subject of the complaint, the Commission issued a direction to rectify to the builder. Some rectification work was carried out by the builder, but not to the satisfaction of the Commission. The Commission then took over and what followed was the issuing of a scope of works on 8 February 2022 notifying the builder that the cost of rectification would be $21,246,83. There was email correspondence between the builder and the Commission about this and then on 25 July 2022 the Commission issued a variation to the cost of the scope of works increasing it by $14,885.34.[1] The builder then sought to review the decision about scope of works by filing an…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Brennan 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
[2024] QCAT 37
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Brennan v Queensland Building and Construction Commission, the respondent made a decision regarding the issuance of a scope of works to the applicant. The applicant sought to review this decision under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was tasked with determining whether the application to review was filed within the 28-day limitation period.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the date of filing the application to review was the date the application was stamped and the seal was applied by the Tribunal, or the date the application was emailed to the Tribunal by the applicant. The applicant emailed the application to review on the 28th day, and the Tribunal processed the application, applying its stamp and seal the day after it was received.

The Tribunal held that the date of filing an application to review was the date on which it was received by the Tribunal, not the date when the Tribunal applied its stamp and seal. Consequently, the application to review was not filed within the 28-day limitation period. The application was therefore dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application to review the decision filed on 23 August 2022.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application to review a decision filed on 23 August 2022 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.