Dreyer v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

[2023] QCAT 471

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Dreyer v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2023] QCAT 471

PARTIES:

DEAN JASON DREYER

(applicant)

V

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR016-21

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

7 December 2023

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Cranwell

ORDERS:

The application for miscellaneous matters filed on 5 October 2023 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – GENERALLY – OTHER MATTERS –  where applicant seeks non-publication order – whether grounds for non-publication order made out

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 13, s 25, s 31, s 58

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 19, s 66, s 90, s 125

Dreyer v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2022] QCAT 276

REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondent:	Self-represented
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. On 19 July 2022, I confirmed a decision by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (‘the QBCC’) to refuse Mr Dreyer’s application for a building licence: see Dreyer v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2022] QCAT 276.

2. On 5 October 2023, Mr Dreyer lodged an application for miscellaneous matters, seeking that a non-publication order be made.  The reasons Mr Dreyer sought a non-publication order were as follows:

   I am sure you can appreciate that my rights to privacy including my honour, reputation and as such my private affairs take precedence over the right to freedom of information and expression through the internet.  ‘Balancing the rights to privacy and/or protection of reputation with the rights to freedom of information and expression presents challenges.  It is clear however that measures to protect these rights which limit freedom of expression and information must comply with the requirements set out in article 19(3) of the ICCPR’.

   Without getting into specifics regarding the reasons and unsubstantiated mere opinions of members included within decisions and orders handed down, and without getting into specifics regarding International Covenants and subsequent Domestic laws protecting my Human Rights, it is with all due respect that I ask you to make such orders and action the removal of those decisions and orders made.

   Your understanding and actioning of this request in advance is most graciously appreciated.

3. On 15 November 2023, Mr Dreyer lodged a further submission in the following terms:

   Pursuant to-Article 17 ICCPR

   ‘Freedom from arbitrary interference with home, family, correspondence or reputation privacy (article 17 of the ICCPR).

   Balancing the rights to privacy and/or protection of reputation with the rights to freedom of information and expression presents challenges.  It is clear however that measures to protect these rights which limit freedom of expression and information must comply with the requirements set out in article 19(3) of the ICCPR

   Right to privacy, family, home, correspondence, honour and reputation

   “Article 17 of the ICCPR states that:

   1. No one…