Cantamessa v Queensland Building and Construction Commission (No 2)

The case of Cantamessa v Queensland Building and Construction Commission (No 2) involved a dispute between the applicant, Cantamessa, and the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC). Cantamessa sought review of a decision by the QBCC to issue a Direction to Rectify and/or Complete No. 0101527, which required Cantamessa to rectify 11 items of defective or incomplete building work. Cantamessa argued that the decision was unfair, denied him natural justice, and was not in accordance with the Objects of the legislation. The matter was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The primary legal issue before the Court was whether it was unfair to direct Cantamessa to rectify the building works. The Court considered whether Cantamessa was afforded natural justice by the QBCC, and whether Cantamessa genuinely attempted to enable and help the QBCC to make the decision on the merits. The Court also examined whether the decision to issue the Direction was unfair, having regard to the amount owing to Cantamessa. The Court found that it was unreasonable to issue a Direction to Rectify because Cantamessa's final tax invoice remained unpaid, he was not informed of the inspections and was not given an opportunity to attend them, and there was considerable uncertainty surrounding the approach taken by the QBCC. The Court found that the decision by the QBCC to issue a Direction was unfair because of the failure by QBCC to clearly identify the purpose of the inspections. The Court held that the objective of the maintenance of building standards was not compromised by not issuing a Direction in the circumstances of this dispute. Conversely, issuing a Direction would not be striking a reasonable balance between the Homeowner and the Applicant.

The Court dismissed Cantamessa's application for leave to appeal, finding that the proceedings were not particularly or unusually complex. The Court found that the issues of fact and law which arose under the applications had some complexity and took two days to be heard, but they were not particularly or unusually complex. The Court also noted that Counsel was briefed for Cantamessa and the Respondent's advocacy was handled by a solicitor both here and below. The Court found that the fact that Cantamessa had to raise "additional various appropriate legal objections mostly arising from the Respondent's conduct of the case" did not make it particularly complex, particularly as he had experienced Counsel capable of dealing with them. The Court concluded that there were no compelling reasons to grant leave to appeal, and dismissed the application for leave to appeal.