Buglar v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2025] QCAT 371

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Buglar v Queensland Building and Construction Commission & Anor [2025] QCAT 371

PARTIES:

ANDREW JAMES BUGLAR

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

(first respondent)

ANASTASI KOTIS

(second respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR454-23

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

26 September 2025

HEARING DATES:

19 May 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Lumb

ORDERS:

1.     The decision made by the First Respondent on 2 June 2023 to give a direction to rectify Items 1 and 4 of the Second Respondent’s complaint of 31 May 2022 is set aside and is substituted with a decision not to give a direction to rectify Items 1 and 4 of the Second Respondent’s complaint of 31 May 2022.

2.     Any party seeking an order for costs must file in the Tribunal two (2) copies of, and give to the other parties one (1) copy of, written submissions in support of a costs order, no longer than five (5) pages, within 14 days of the date of receipt of the Decision.

3.     If written submissions as to costs are filed pursuant to Order 2 above, the party or parties against whom an order for costs is sought must file in the Tribunal two (2) copies of, and give to each other party one (1) copy of, written submissions in response, no longer than five (5) pages for each response, within 14 days of receipt of the written submissions.

4.     Each party that receives written submissions pursuant to Order 3 above may file in the Tribunal two (2) copies of, and give to each other party one (1) copy of, written submissions in reply, no longer than three (3) pages for each reply, within 14 days of receipt of the written submissions.

5.     If no written submissions are filed pursuant to Order 2 above, there will be no order as to costs of the proceeding.

6.     If written submissions as to costs are filed, the application for costs will be determined on the papers without an oral hearing.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – general administrative review – where homeowner made complaint about alleged defective residential building work – where complaint included complaints about water ingress in relation to main bedroom window and stairwell window – where Queensland Building and Construction Commission (‘QBCC’) decided to give a direction to rectify to the builder – where the builder carried out rectification in accordance with the direction – where homeowner made subsequent complaint about the same windows – where QBCC decided to give a second direction to rectify to the builder – where builder applied to QBCC for internal review of that decision – where QBCC decided to give a direction to rectify in the same terms – where builder applied to the Tribunal for external review of decision – whether defective building work – whether unfair, in the circumstances, to issue the direction to rectify

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 38

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 Buglar 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 371
Decision Date: 26 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Buglar v Queensland Building and Construction Commission, the applicant, Mr Buglar, a homeowner, initiated proceedings in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal against the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) and the builder, seeking a review of a decision made by the QBCC. The dispute arose from a complaint made by Mr Buglar about alleged defective residential building work. The complaint included issues of water ingress in relation to the main bedroom window and the stairwell window. The QBCC decided to issue a direction to the builder to rectify the defects, which the builder carried out. However, Mr Buglar made a subsequent complaint about the same windows, prompting the QBCC to issue a second direction to rectify. The builder applied for an internal review of the second direction, which the QBCC upheld. The builder then sought external review of the QBCC's decision in the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the building work was defective and whether it was unfair, in the circumstances, for the QBCC to issue the second direction to rectify. The Tribunal considered whether the QBCC's decision was legally sound, whether it was procedurally fair, and whether the decision was reasonable in all the circumstances. The Tribunal examined the evidence presented, the application of relevant legislation and regulations, and the QBCC's process in making the decision. The builder argued that the QBCC's decision was unfair as the defects had already been rectified and the second direction was unnecessary. The QBCC contended that the direction was appropriate and necessary to address the homeowner's concerns.

The Tribunal found that the QBCC's decision to issue the second direction to rectify was flawed. The Tribunal held that the QBCC did not adequately consider the builder's submission that the defects had already been rectified, and the QBCC's process was not procedurally fair. The Tribunal determined that it was unfair to issue the second direction to rectify, given that the builder had already addressed the defects in accordance with the first direction. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the QBCC's decision and substituted it with a decision not to give a direction to rectify Items 1 and 4 of the complaint. The Tribunal also outlined the procedure for any party seeking an order for costs.

In summary, the Tribunal set aside the QBCC's decision to issue the second direction to rectify and substituted it with a decision not to give such direction. The Tribunal emphasised the importance of procedural fairness and the need for the QBCC to adequately consider all relevant submissions when making decisions. The orders of the Tribunal included provisions for the submission and consideration of costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision made by the First Respondent on 2 June 2023 to give a direction to rectify Items 1 and 4 of the Second Respondent’s complaint of 31 May 2022 is set aside and is substituted with a decision not to give a direction to rectify Items 1 and 4 of the Second Respondent’s complaint of 31 May 2022.

2. Any party seeking an order for costs must file in the Tribunal two (2) copies of, and give to the other parties one (1) copy of, written submissions in support of a costs order, no longer than five (5) pages, within 14 days of the date of receipt of the Decision.

3. If written submissions as to costs are filed pursuant to Order 2 above, the party or parties against whom an order for costs is sought must file in the Tribunal two (2) copies of, and give to each other party one (1) copy of, written submissions in response, no longer than five (5) pages for each response, within 14 days of receipt of the written submissions.

4. Each party that receives written submissions pursuant to Order 3 above may file in the Tribunal two (2) copies of, and give to each other party one (1) copy of, written submissions in reply, no longer than three (3) pages for each reply, within 14 days of receipt of the written submissions.

5. If no written submissions are filed pursuant to Order 2 above, there will be no order as to costs of the proceeding.

6. If written submissions as to costs are filed, the application for costs will be determined on the papers without an oral hearing.

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.