Crocker v QBCC

Link copied
Case Copied 13 min read

CITATION:

Crocker v QBCC [2017] QCAT 304

PARTIES:

Lee Anthony Crocker
(Applicant)

v

Queensland Building and Construction Commission

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

GAR232-16
GAR234-16
GAR235-16

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers and 17July 2017

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Gardiner

DELIVERED ON:

15 September 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.   The time to file an application to review a decision is extended until
9 September 2016.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – TIME, EXTENSION AND ABRIDGEMENT – extension of time to lodge a review  – where applicant sought extension of time to file a review application – whether extension should be granted

Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000 (Qld),
s 71, s 86, s 87, s 90, s 111C
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 61

Cardillo v Queensland Building Services Authority
[2011] QCAT 574
Crisp v QBSA [2010] QCAT 263
Jasch v QBSA [2013] QCAT 586
Mahoney v QBSA [2013] QCA 323
Molier v The Body Corporate for Q1 CTS 34498 [2012] QCATA 008
Namour v QBSA [2014] QCA 72
QBCC v Turcinovic [2017] QCA 77
Samimi & Anor v QBCC [2015] QCA 106
Turner v QBSA [1999] QBT 66

This matter was partially heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (“QCAT Act”) with a further oral hearing for submissions on 17 July 2017.

REPRESENTATIVES on 17 July 2017:

APPLICANT:

represented by Mr D. Carrier-Hubbard, solicitor of Streten Masons Lawyers

RESPONDENT:

represented by Ms M. Guiney, in-house solicitor of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. On 9 September 2016, Lee Anthony Crocker filed an application to extend time for him to review a decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (“the Commission”) to grant an insurance claim in regards to the construction works at Norman Park, Toowong and Ashgrove in Brisbane. 

  2. Statewide Residential Building Inspection and Maintenance Services Pty Ltd (“Statewide”), formerly known as Build Restore Pty Ltd and Kitchens 2 Pty Ltd, undertook alleged incomplete construction at these properties. 

  3. Mr Lee Crocker was a director of Statewide from 2004 to 11 January 2013.

  4. On 12 December 2013, Statewide had liquidators appointed. At the time, Mr Lee Crocker’s brother, Mr Dean Crocker was the nominee licensee for Statewide.

  5. Because of Statewide’s liquidation, Mr Dean Crocker’s licence was cancelled and he is now classified as an excluded individual until December 2018.

  6. Three insurance claims were made under the statutory insurance scheme for non-completion of work. These claims were for contracts between parties and Statewide at the Norman Park, Toowong and Ashgrove properties. 

  7. On 2 April 2014, the Commission issued a scope of works decision to the company liquidator in relation to the Norman Park property.  

  8. On 8 June 2014, the Commission granted an indemnity concerning the Norman Park property in the sum of $123,267.83 in respect of incomplete building work. 

  9. On 3 December 2014, the Commission issued a…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Crocker v QBCC 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
[2017] QCAT 304
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Crocker was the applicant seeking an extension of time to lodge a review against a decision made by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC). The case was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant's request for an extension of time to file a review application should be granted, considering the circumstances that led to the delay. The Tribunal considered the principles of natural justice and the importance of timely applications, along with the merits of the case and any exceptional circumstances that might warrant an extension.

The Tribunal evaluated the reasons provided by the applicant for the delay, the extent of the delay, and the impact of the delay on the respondent. It also considered the likelihood of the review being successful and whether the applicant had acted with due diligence. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had provided sufficient justification for the delay and that an extension was warranted in the interests of justice. The Tribunal found that the delay was not due to any fault of the applicant and that the extension would not prejudice the respondent.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request for an extension of time to file the review application. The time for filing the review application was extended until 9 September 2016. The Tribunal's decision was based on the balance of convenience and the principles of natural justice, and it recognised the importance of giving effect to the right to a fair hearing and the right to access to the courts.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The time to file an application to review a decision is extended until

9 September 2016.

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.