Davis & Ors v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Davis & Ors v Queensland Building and Construction Commission  [2020] QCAT 189

PARTIES:

In GAR139-18:

GREGORY RENTOUL DAVIS

(first applicant)

ROBYN KAY CURHAM

(second applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

(respondent)

In GAR144-18:

BODY CORPORATE FOR 24-26 QUERRIN ST COMMUNITY TITLES SCHEME

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR139-18; GAR144-18

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

26 May 2020

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Howe

ORDERS:

1.   The answer to the question raised in issue 1 is no.

2.   The answer to the question raised in issue 2 is no.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – BUILDERS – STATUTORY POWER TO REQUIRE RECTIFICATION OF DEFECTIVE OR INCOMPLETE BUILDING WORK – whether the statutory time limit for the Commission to issue a direction to rectify defective building work had expired – whether the statutory time limit for the Commission to issue a direction to rectify defective building work was extended - whether a new statutory time limit for the Commission to issue a direction to rectify defective building work arose in circumstances where remedial work utilised different rectification methods - where the applicants made complaints about building work outside the statutory time limit – where the builder had returned and performed rectification work before that and within the statutory time limit voluntarily – where the work done by the builder when he returned was claimed to be defective

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 72A(4)

Barry v QBCC [2015] QSC 50

Sadd, S v QBSA [2007] QCCTB 45
Stephens v QBCC [2018] QCAT 281

Torea Pty Ltd v QBSA [2013] QCAT 004

REPRESENTATION:
Applicants:	P J Hick, Active Law
Respondent:	N Thirumoorthi, in house legal
APPEARANCES:	This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. An eight townhouse complex was constructed by a builder at Yeronga in about June 2009. The applicants (“the owners”) in matter GAR139-18 purchased one of the units (Lot 5). The applicant in matter GAR 144–18 is the body corporate for the complex (“the body corporate”).

2. A certificate of classification for the building was issued on 10 July 2009.

3. Water entry into the ground floor rooms at the rear of the complex through the rear retaining wall, which also formed the exterior wall to a living area in Lot 5, was first noticed in December 2014 or January 2015.

4. According to the applicants, over the period January 2015 to January 2016 the builder returned and carried out work on the retaining wall and in some units including Lot 5 with the object of preventing water penetration through the retaining wall. The work involved removing floor coverings and internal wall framing and lining from the ground floor rooms, the application of a waterproof membrane to the inside face of the retaining wall and replacing internal wall framing and lining and…