Legal Research
Cases
Campbell v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

Campbell v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

Link copied

Case Copied 12 March 2021 26 min read

Contents

On this page

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Campbell v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCATA 34

PARTIES: GLEN CAMPBELL

(applicant/appellant)

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL358-19

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR244-18

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

12 March 2021

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Brown
Member Traves

ORDERS:

1. Leave to appeal is granted.

2. The appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – RECOVERY OF COSTS – ENTITLEMENT – where the applicant sought a review of a decision to deny his claim under the statutory home warranty scheme – where, to avoid commencing litigation, the applicant had written to the respondent requesting a review of the decision and to allow his claim – where the applicant instituted proceedings – where the respondent reconsidered its decision and overturned its original decision – where the new decision was not for the reasons put forward by the applicant – where the applicant withdrew their application before the tribunal made a final decision –where the circumstances were not so clear as to make the respondent’s original decision unreasonable – where s 100 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) establishes a presumption against awarding costs – whether the Tribunal Member at first instance erred in not awarding costs to the applicant

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 23, s142

Ascot v Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia [2010] QCAT 364

Australian Securities Commission v Aust-Home Investments Ltd (1993) 116 ALR 523
Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232
Demac Homes (Qld) Pty Ltd v Queensland Building Services Authority & Others [2011] QCAT 331
Dura (Australia) Constructions Pty Ltd v Hue Boutique Living Pty Ltd (No 3) [2012] VSC 99
Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Lyons v Queensland Building and Construction Commission & Dreamstarter Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2016] QCAT 218
McGee v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QCATA 124
McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577
ONE.TEL Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2000) 101 FCR 548
Queensland Building Services Authority v Johnston [2011] QCATA 265.
QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41
Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No 2) [2010] QCAT 412
Re Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (Cth); Ex Parte Lai Qin (1997) 186 CLR 622
Rix v Queensland Building Services Authority [2011] QCAT 333
Schneider & Anor v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QCAT 412
Shellharbour City Council v Minister for Local Government [2017] NSWCA 256
Shepherd v Felt & Textiles of Australia Ltd (1937) 45 CLR 359

Tamawood Pty Ltd & Anor v Paans [2005] 2 Qd R 101

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal…

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 Campbell 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: [2021] QCATA 34
Decision Date: 12 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Campbell v Queensland Building and Construction Commission, the applicant sought a review of a decision to deny his claim under the statutory home warranty scheme. The applicant had initially written to the respondent requesting a review of the decision and to allow his claim. However, the respondent did not reconsider the decision, and the applicant subsequently instituted proceedings. The respondent reconsidered its decision and overturned the original decision, but not for the reasons put forward by the applicant. The applicant withdrew their application before the tribunal made a final decision. The court was required to determine whether the circumstances were such that the respondent’s original decision was unreasonable and whether the Tribunal Member at first instance erred in not awarding costs to the applicant.

The court found that the circumstances were not so clear as to make the respondent’s original decision unreasonable. The court also found that s 100 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) establishes a presumption against awarding costs. The court did not consider the applicant's offer to be a factor favouring an award of costs. The court concluded that the interests of justice did not require an order for costs. The appeal was refused.

As a result of the appeal being refused, the orders made by the court were to grant leave to appeal and to refuse the appeal. The court did not make any other orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal is granted.

2. The appeal is refused.

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

We do not consider Mr Campbell’s offer to be a factor favouring an award of costs. Conclusion and orders We are not persuaded that the interests of justice require an order for costs. The appeal is refused.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Campbell v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCATA 34
PARTIES:	GLEN CAMPBELL
(applicant/appellant)
v
QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION
(respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	APL358-19
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:	GAR244-18
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
DELIVERED ON:	12 March 2021
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Senior Member Brown Member Traves
ORDERS:	1. Leave to appeal is granted. 2. The appeal is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – RECOVERY OF COSTS – ENTITLEMENT – where the applicant sought a review of a decision to deny his claim under the statutory home warranty scheme – where, to avoid commencing litigation, the applicant had written to the respondent requesting a review of the decision and to allow his claim – where the applicant instituted proceedings – where the respondent reconsidered its decision and overturned its original decision – where the new decision was not for the reasons put forward by the applicant – where the applicant withdrew their application before the tribunal made a final decision –where the circumstances were not so clear as to make the respondent’s original decision unreasonable – where s 100 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) establishes a presumption against awarding costs – whether the Tribunal Member at first instance erred in not awarding costs to the applicant Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 23, s142 Ascot v Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia [2010] QCAT 364 Australian Securities Commission v Aust-Home Investments Ltd (1993) 116 ALR 523 Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232 Demac Homes (Qld) Pty Ltd v Queensland Building Services Authority & Others [2011] QCAT 331 Dura (Australia) Constructions Pty Ltd v Hue Boutique Living Pty Ltd (No 3) [2012] VSC 99 Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Lyons v Queensland Building and Construction Commission & Dreamstarter Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2016] QCAT 218 McGee v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QCATA 124 McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577 ONE.TEL Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2000) 101 FCR 548 Queensland Building Services Authority v Johnston [2011] QCATA 265. QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41 Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No 2) [2010] QCAT 412 Re Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (Cth); Ex Parte Lai Qin (1997) 186 CLR 622 Rix v Queensland Building Services Authority [2011] QCAT 333 Schneider & Anor v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QCAT 412 Shellharbour City Council v Minister for Local Government [2017] NSWCA 256 Shepherd v Felt & Textiles of Australia Ltd (1937) 45 CLR 359 Tamawood Pty Ltd & Anor v Paans [2005] 2 Qd R 101
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal…