Fisher v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Fisher v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2019] QCAT 323

PARTIES:

RONALD ERIC FISHER
(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION
(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR097-19; GAR184-19

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review

DELIVERED ON:

30 October 2019

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Dr Collier

ORDERS:

1.    Applications GAR097-19 and GAR184-19 are dismissed.

2.    There is no order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – when a person is a ‘person affected’ by a decision of the QBCC – standing to appeal a QBCC decision – complaint by a member of the public – complaint against a QBCC licence-holder – complaint against a building certifier

Building Act 1975 (Qld), s 90, Schedule 2
Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 74F, 86(1)(j), s 86C(3), s 86E(b), s 87

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

McCrystal v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QCAT 207

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. The Applicant, Mr Fisher, lives at 19 Excalibur Court, Paradise Point, Queensland.

2. Mr Fisher made two complaints to the Respondent, the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (‘QBCC’) against a private building certifier, Mr Mark Leeves, who was the building certifier in respect of two properties at, respectively:

   (a)1388 Kingsford Smith Drive, Pinkenba, Queensland (‘the Pinkenba site’); and

   (b)21 Excalibur Court, Paradise Point, Queensland (the ‘Paradise Point site’).

3. Mr Fisher has no financial or other interest in either property, although he lives adjacent to the Paradise Point site.

4. On 20 July 2018 Mr Fisher filed a complaint against Mr Leeves with the QBCC in which he raised six instances that could give rise to allegations of unsatisfactory conduct or professional misconduct against Mr Leeves concerning his work at the Pinkenba site.[1]

   [1]Building Act 1975 (Qld), s 190.

5. The QBCC investigated Mr Fisher’s allegations and, in its decision dated 18 December 2018, decided that Mr Leeves had not engaged in unsatisfactory conduct or professional misconduct in respect of his work at the Pinkenba site.

6. Mr Fisher requested that this decision of the QBCC be subject to an internal review. In its Decision Notice dated 18 February 2019 the QBCC deemed the original decision to continue to apply because a review decision had not been made within the 28 day time period allowed by law.[2]

   [2]Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 86C(3).

7. On 20 July 2018 Mr Fisher also filed a further complaint against Mr Leeves with the QBCC, on this occasion listing twenty instances that could give rise to allegations of unsatisfactory conduct or professional misconduct against Mr Leeves concerning his work at the Paradise Point site.

8. The QBCC again investigated Mr Fisher’s allegations and, in its decision dated 25 February 2019, upheld one instance only of the…