Crocker v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Lee Anthony Crocker  v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2020] QSC 24

PARTIES:

LEE ANTHONY CROCKER

(Applicant)

v
QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 1101 of 2019

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 February 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Delivered Ex Tempore on 17 February 2020

JUDGE:

Jackson J

ORDER:

The order of the Court is that:

1.   Set aside the respondent’s decision to approve the insurance claim made by Aaron and Melanie McGhie in respect of building work at 120 Camp Street Toowong file no 1066447/19 made by the respondent on 15 December 2014.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW– JUDICIAL REVIEW– REVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCT– DECISIONS TO WHICH JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION APPLIES– MEANING OF DECISION– where the applicant submits that a series of decisions made by the respondent are invalid on the grounds that there was a failure to accord procedural fairness or that the decision was unreasonable– where the court found that a decision as to the scope of works for the completion or rectification of building work made by the respondent is capable of judicial review– where the court found that each decision to approve the homeowners claim under the statutory insurance scheme is capable of judicial review– where the court found that none of the decisions challenged on the ground of an absence of procedural fairness is capable of judicial review.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW– JUDICIAL REVIEW– GROUNDS OF REVIEW– UNREASONABLENESS– where the respondent made a decision to make a payment on the claim in respect of the Toowong property– where the respondent was aware that there was a deed of settlement made between the building contractor and the homeowner which released the building contractor from further liability– where there was a delay between the making of the decision and the bringing of the present application– where the court held that the decision was unreasonable.

Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 20, s 43
Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 70, s 73(1), s 86(1), s 111C
Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), Chapter 14 Part 4

Griffith University v Tang (2005) 221 CLR 99, discussed
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18, discussed

COUNSEL:

M Cooke for the applicant
M Hickey and R De Luchi for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

SMS Law for the applicant
Queensland Building and Construction Commission for the respondent

Jackson J: This is the final hearing of an originating application for judicial review under chapter 14, part 4 of the UCPR and the Judicial Review Act 1991, which I will call the “JRA”.

Paragraph 2 of the application applies for the declaration of non-liability under section 111C of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991, which I will call the “QBCCA”, because “the decision to issue the notices of potential debts” for liability under that section was invalid on the ground…