Crocker v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

Crocker, a homeowner, sought judicial review of decisions made by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) regarding the completion or rectification of building work. The dispute centred around whether the QBCC’s decisions were reviewable under judicial review legislation, whether they were made without procedural fairness, and whether they were unreasonable. The QBCC had made a series of decisions, including determining the scope of works for the building project and approving insurance claims submitted by the homeowners under a statutory insurance scheme.

The legal issues before the court were whether the decisions made by the QBCC were subject to judicial review, if they failed to accord procedural fairness, and if they were unreasonable. The court found that the decision regarding the scope of works and each decision to approve the homeowners' claim under the statutory insurance scheme were capable of judicial review. However, the court held that none of the decisions challenged on the ground of an absence of procedural fairness were capable of judicial review. The court then examined the reasonableness of the QBCC’s decision to approve the insurance claim, considering the fact that the QBCC was aware of a deed of settlement between the building contractor and the homeowners, which released the building contractor from further liability. The court concluded that the decision was unreasonable.

The court held that the QBCC’s decision to approve the insurance claim made by Aaron and Melanie McGhie in respect of building work at 120 Camp Street Toowong, made on 15 December 2014, was unreasonable. The court set aside this decision.