Bridge v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2025] QCAT 219

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Bridge v Queensland Building and Construction Commission & Anor [2025] QCAT 219

PARTIES:

ELIZABETH BRIDGE

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

(first respondent)

AND
GEOFFREY DOUGLAS REWALD

(second respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR430-22

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

5 June 2025

HEARING DATE:

19 February 2025

20 February 2025

HEARD AT:

Townsville

DECISION OF:

Member Taylor

ORDERS:

1.     The first respondent’s internal review decision of 21 September 2022 (the Decision) is set-aside.

2.     The Decision, being of the first respondent’s original decision of 27 July 2022 (the Original Decision) in terms of the applicant’s complaint to the first respondent lodged 13 June 2022 (the Complaint), is returned to the first respondent for reconsideration on internal review in accordance with the following direction.

3.     The first respondent is to further consider the internal review in the following manner (the Continuing Internal Review):

(a)     The first respondent is to maintain its file on the Complaint open until the earliest of the following to occur:

(i)        1 December 2026;

(ii)      the occurrence of one or more substantial rain weather events between the date of this Order and 1 December 2026 (the Weather Events), from which it is able to determine that the building work performed by RRR Civil Pty Ltd under the supervision of the second respondent (the RRR Work) is defective such requiring a direction to rectify to be issued; or

(iii)     a date the applicant may agree to in writing.

(b)     during any of the Weather Events, the first respondent is to promptly inspect the applicant’s house to ascertain and identify the extent of water ingress (if any) in the vicinity of the RRR Work; and

(c)     subject to that provided for in Order 3(d) herein, to the extent the first respondent identifies any such water ingress it is to promptly undertake the requisite investigation to identify the source of the water ingress, such to be as provided for in Order 3(e) herein (the Investigation).

(d)     the first respondent is not required to undertake the Investigation in the circumstances it can and does contemporaneously identify the source of that ingress, and in turn whether:

(i)        the RRR Work is defective such requiring a direction to rectify to be issued; or

(ii)      it is from a location or component of the construction of the applicant’s house that did not fall within the scope of the RRR Work;

(e)     to the extent Investigation is required, the first respondent is to proceed as follows:

(i)        any such Investigation is to cover the entirety of the RRR Work and not be limited only to the location of the water ingress identified;

(ii)      to the extent the Investigation is by way of non-invasive techniques, it is to be of sufficient ambit, duration, and intensity, to ensure all possible scenarios as to sources of the ingress are considered; and

(iii) to the extent it is not possible to adequately investigate without…

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 Bridge 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: [2025] QCAT 219
Decision Date: 5 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bridge v Queensland Building and Construction Commission, the applicant, a homeowner, sought review of a decision made by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBC) not to direct rectification of building work carried out by a contractor. The homeowner had engaged the contractor to address water ingress issues in her house, which persisted even after the remedial work was completed. The contractor subsequently went into liquidation, prompting the homeowner to lodge a complaint with the QBC. The QBC inspected the works but could not replicate the water ingress during their inspection, leading them to conclude that the work was not defective and subsequently close the file. The homeowner was dissatisfied with this decision and sought judicial review of the QBC’s decision.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the QBC should have maintained its file open pending further adverse weather events to inspect any water ingress that might occur, and whether the QBC should have directed an invasive investigation to ascertain the existence of any defective work causing or permitting water ingress, given that the investigation performed in response to the complaint was deemed inadequate. The court was required to determine whether the QBC's decision was lawful and whether it had properly exercised its discretion in deciding not to issue a direction to rectify.

The court found that the QBC had not adequately considered the possibility of water ingress occurring during adverse weather conditions, and that the investigation conducted was insufficient. The court held that the QBC should have maintained its file open until adverse weather events occurred or a specific date agreed upon by the homeowner. Additionally, the court directed that if water ingress was identified during adverse weather events, the QBC should promptly inspect the site and undertake a comprehensive investigation, including invasive techniques if necessary, to identify the source of the water ingress. The court set aside the QBC's decision and remitted it for reconsideration with specific directions as outlined in the orders.

The court’s orders included setting aside the original decision and returning it to the QBC for reconsideration, directing that the file should remain open until adverse weather events occur or another specified date, and mandating a comprehensive investigation if water ingress is identified during adverse weather events. The court also provided for the possibility of the homeowner disagreeing with the extended period for the review and outlined the consequences of such a disagreement.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The first respondent’s internal review decision of 21 September 2022 (the Decision) is set-aside.

2. The Decision, being of the first respondent’s original decision of 27 July 2022 (the Original Decision) in terms of the applicant’s complaint to the first respondent lodged 13 June 2022 (the Complaint), is returned to the first respondent for reconsideration on internal review in accordance with the following direction.

3. The first respondent is to further consider the internal review in the following manner (the Continuing Internal Review):

(a) The first respondent is to maintain its file on the Complaint open until the earliest of the following to occur:

(i) 1 December 2026;

(ii) the occurrence of one or more substantial rain weather events between the date of this Order and 1 December 2026 (the Weather Events), from which it is able to determine that the building work performed by RRR Civil Pty Ltd under the supervision of the second respondent (the RRR Work) is defective such requiring a direction to rectify to be issued; or

(iii) a date the applicant may agree to in writing.

(b) during any of the Weather Events, the first respondent is to promptly inspect the applicant’s house to ascertain and identify the extent of water ingress (if any) in the vicinity of the RRR Work; and

(c) subject to that provided for in Order 3(d) herein, to the extent the first respondent identifies any such water ingress it is to promptly undertake the requisite investigation to identify the source of the water ingress, such to be as provided for in Order 3(e) herein (the Investigation).

(d) the first respondent is not required to undertake the Investigation in the circumstances it can and does contemporaneously identify the source of that ingress, and in turn whether:

(i) the RRR Work is defective such requiring a direction to rectify to be issued; or

(ii) it is from a location or component of the construction of the applicant’s house that did not fall within the scope of the RRR Work;

(e) to the extent Investigation is required, the first respondent is to proceed as follows:

(i) any such Investigation is to cover the entirety of the RRR Work and not be limited only to the location of the water ingress identified;

(ii) to the extent the Investigation is by way of non-invasive techniques, it is to be of sufficient ambit, duration, and intensity, to ensure all possible scenarios as to sources of the ingress are considered; and

(iii) to the extent it is not possible to adequately investigate without invasive techniques being engaged, it is to direct the second respondent, or any other relevant person in the manner provided for under s 71I, s 72, s 72A, and s 72B of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), to perform the requisite level of invasive investigation.

(f) Upon the respondent reaching a conclusion within the Continuing Internal Review in the manner contemplated by Order 3(a) or 3(d) herein, or on completion of the relevant Investigation provided for by Order 3(e) herein, such that a decision can be made, it shall promptly make a decision and conclude the Continuing Internal Review.

4. Should the applicant disagree with the extended period of time for the Continuing Internal Review as provided for in Order 3 herein, she is to notify the first respondent in writing within 14 days of the date of these orders, and on such occurring the first respondent will be taken to have made an internal review decision that is the same as the Original Decision in the manner contemplated by s 86C(3) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld).

5. Should the applicant not provide any such written notification to the first respondent as provided for in Order 4 herein, she is deemed to have agreed to the extended period of time in the manner contemplated by s 86C(2)(b) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld).

6. The parties have liberty to apply to this Tribunal for further directions in terms of the Continuing Internal Review and/or the Investigation.

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.