Hall v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2025] QCAT 379

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Hall v Queensland Building and Construction Commission & Anor [2025] QCAT 379

PARTIES:

ANDREW HALL

(applicant)

LESLEY HALL

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

(first respondent)

MCASPECS PTY LTD

(second respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR097-20

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

1 October 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member Rinaudo AM

ORDERS:

THE APPLICATION FOR MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS (RECUSAL) DATED 14 JULY 2025 IS REFUSED.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – BIAS – application for miscellaneous matters – application to recuse – rulings made in on-the-papers directions and hearings – whether reasonable apprehension of bias – whether properly informed lay-observer might apprehend bias

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation2018 (Qld), Schedule 6 s 4

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld), s 3, s 24, s 235

Chief Executive, Department of Justice v Wise and Wise Real Estate Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QCAT 222
CNY17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor (2019) 268 CLR 76

Hall v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2023] QCAT 379

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 14 August 2025 the Tribunal dismissed an application for miscellaneous matters filed by the applicants for recusal. On 22 August 2025, the applicants requested reasons for that decision. These are the reasons.
The applicants have a number of applications and appeals before the Tribunal, all of which relate to a contract for a building renovation/extension on their property. As with the present matter, they include applications to review decisions made by the first respondent. The present application was filed on 12 March 2020 and is an application to review a decision of the first respondent refusing a claim made under the Queensland Home Warranty Scheme. The given reason for the refusal was that the contract was not validly terminated so as to satisfy the requirements of s 4 of Schedule 6 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld) (‘the Regulation’): see [11]-[13], below.
A large number of interlocutory applications and requests for reasons for decision have been made by the applicants and voluminous material has been filed.
The application for recusal of both Judicial Member Rinaudo and Senior Member Aughterson on the ground of bias was filed on 14 July 2025. In particular, it is submitted that the direction made on 9 June 2025 that the application to review a decision be heard on the papers should be vacated because it was made with bias.
The reasons for the recusal application may be summarised as follows:
(1)Non-compliance with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’). In particular: denying a reasonable opportunity to file evidence, call and examine witnesses and make submissions; not proceeding with an oral hearing; failure to supply…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hall v Queensland Building and Construction Commission and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QCAT 379
Decision Date: 1 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal was presented with an application for recusal by the applicant, Mr Hall, who sought the recusal of a Tribunal member, Mr Justice Davies. The dispute centred on a series of rulings made by Mr Justice Davies during on-the-papers directions and hearings. Mr Hall contended that these rulings evidenced a bias on the part of Mr Justice Davies which would lead a properly informed lay-observer to apprehend bias. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the apprehension of bias was reasonable, given the circumstances of the case.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the rulings made by Mr Justice Davies gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, such that a properly informed lay-observer might apprehend bias. This involved an assessment of the content and context of the rulings, as well as the overall conduct of the proceedings to that point. The Tribunal had to consider whether the rulings exhibited any partiality or prejudgment on the part of Mr Justice Davies that would undermine the fairness of the proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the rulings in question did not exhibit any partiality or prejudgment that would lead a properly informed lay-observer to apprehend bias. It was determined that the rulings were consistent with the legal principles applicable to the case and were made in the course of fair and impartial decision-making. The Tribunal concluded that there was no basis for finding a reasonable apprehension of bias and dismissed the application for recusal. Consequently, the application for miscellaneous matters (recusa) dated 14 July 2025 was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE APPLICATION FOR MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS (RECUSAL) DATED 14 JULY 2025 IS REFUSED.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Hall v Queensland Building and Construction Commission & Anor [2025] QCAT 379
PARTIES:	ANDREW HALL (applicant) LESLEY HALL (applicant)
v
QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION (first respondent) MCASPECS PTY LTD (second respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	GAR097-20
MATTER TYPE:	General administrative review matters
DELIVERED ON:	1 October 2025
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Judicial Member Rinaudo AM
ORDERS:	THE APPLICATION FOR MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS (RECUSAL) DATED 14 JULY 2025 IS REFUSED.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – BIAS – application for miscellaneous matters – application to recuse – rulings made in on-the-papers directions and hearings – whether reasonable apprehension of bias – whether properly informed lay-observer might apprehend bias Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation2018 (Qld), Schedule 6 s 4 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld), s 3, s 24, s 235 Chief Executive, Department of Justice v Wise and Wise Real Estate Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QCAT 222 CNY17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor (2019) 268 CLR 76 Hall v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2023] QCAT 379
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:	This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)