Hall v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2024] QCAT 582

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

HALL V QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION [2024] QCAT 582

PARTIES:

ANDREW HALL
(APPLICANT)
LESLEY HALL

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR139-24

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

11 December 2024

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member King-Scott

ORDERS:

1.     The Application for miscellaneous matters filed on 21 February 2024 is dismissed.

2.     The Application for miscellaneous matters filed on 20 March 2024 is dismissed.

3.     The Application for miscellaneous matters filed on 17 June 2024 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where applicants filed application to review a decision – where applicants did not pay prescribed fee – whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to review decision of principal registrar to reject a fee waiver application – whether the tribunal can determine the application

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld)

Education (Queensland of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld)
Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld)
Legislative Standards Act 1992 (Qld)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Regulation 2019 (Qld)

Valuers Registration Act 1992 (Qld)

McKain v RW Miller & Co (South Australia) Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 1

Stanton v Electrics Downunder [2020] QCATA 142

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

Introduction

The Applicants have several review matters pending before the Tribunal. One of those matters filed on 21 February 2024 was an application to review a decision made by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (the review application). However, the Respondent named was not the Commission but a delegate of the Commissioner.
The review application was refused by the Registry.
On the same day, 21 February 2024,[1] the Applicants filed a Form 49 Application for fee waiver (waiver application) on the basis of financial hardship. The Application seeking waiver of the filing fee was again filed on 12 March 2024 to correct an error in the first application that stated that the Applicants were in receipt of legal aid. They were not, and that was corrected in the second application.
[1]The Tribunal date stamp records 22 February 2024 but has been manually corrected to 21 February. 2024. I have assumed that 21 February 2024 is the correct date.
The Application for a fee waiver was rejected by the Registry and the Applicants have filed an Application for miscellaneous matters dated 20 March 2024 in the review application (first filed on 21 February 2024 with the review application). The purpose of the application is not clearly stated but it contains the following statement:[2]
We have supplied the necessary evidence to confirm that we are experiencing financial hardship some of which has been caused directly by Registry Officer Rhiannon Phillips’s refusal to refund in excess of $3000 in Application Fees that was required to…

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.

Continue reading Hall v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

Details

AGLC: Hall v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2024] QCAT 582
Case: [2024] QCAT 582
Decision Date: 11 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants in Hall v Queensland Building and Construction Commission sought to review decisions made by the tribunal regarding their applications to appeal or reduce fees, which were rejected by the tribunal's registry staff. The applicants did not pay the prescribed fees and sought a waiver. The tribunal found that the registry staff had the authority to reject the applicants' fee waiver applications. The applicants then sought to appeal the rejection of their fee waiver applications by the tribunal, arguing that the tribunal had jurisdiction to review the registry staff's decisions.

The court had to determine whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to review the decisions of the principal registrar, who had rejected the applicants' fee waiver applications. The court also had to consider whether the tribunal could determine the application for review of the registry staff's decisions. The court examined the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) to determine the jurisdiction and process for reviewing decisions made by the tribunal. The court found that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to review the registry staff's decisions because those decisions were not subject to the tribunal's review process as outlined in the Act.

The court dismissed the applicants' applications for miscellaneous matters filed on 21 February 2024, 20 March 2024, and 17 June 2024. The court held that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to review the registry staff's decisions to reject the applicants' fee waiver applications. The court found that the tribunal could not determine the application for review of the registry staff's decisions. The court further found that the applicants' concerns about the disclosure of their financial circumstances did not affect the tribunal's jurisdiction or the outcome of the matter.

The tribunal dismissed the applicants' applications for miscellaneous matters filed on 21 February 2024, 20 March 2024, and 17 June 2024. The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to review the registry staff's decisions to reject the applicants' fee waiver applications. The tribunal found that the applicants' concerns about the disclosure of their financial circumstances did not affect the tribunal's jurisdiction or the outcome of the matter.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Application for miscellaneous matters filed on 21 February 2024 is dismissed.

2. The Application for miscellaneous matters filed on 20 March 2024 is dismissed.

3. The Application for miscellaneous matters filed on 17 June 2024 is dismissed.

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

I note that the Form 49 also contains the following note:Review of decisionsFee waiver or appeal fee reduction decisions are administrative decisions and are not reviewable. On the application for miscellaneous matters filed 21 February 2024 and again on 20 March 2024, the Applicants have ticked the box in Part B of the Form 40 which states ‘Application to refer rejection or conditional acceptance of application or referral to tribunal for review’. Clearly, the Applicants are seeking a review of the Registry’s decision. The Applicants, on 17 June 2024, have since filed a further application for miscellaneous matters seeking a non-publication order on the grounds that:[3]If the evidence of our financial hardship circumstances is made available to the respondent party (including QBCC and NRF) we expect that they will attempt to take advantage of our circumstances as they have already done regarding our medical circumstances. If the evidence is also provided to MC Aspects (Applicant in BDL027-20) we expect that they will also try [to] take advantage of the information to delay the proceedings and speed [up] our potential bankruptcy.[3]Application for miscellaneous matters filed 17 June 2024 by the Applicants, 4. I note that sections 33 to 38 are contained in Chapter 2 Part 3 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (the Act) which relates to Starting proceeding. Section 34 of the Act provides for referring matters to the tribunal:(1)This section applies if an enabling Act provides for the referral of a matter to the tribunal.(2)The referral must be made—(a)within the period provided for under the enabling Act; and(b)in a way complying with the rules. The section only provides for referrals under an enabling Act not the Act. Section 35 of the Act deals with the situation where an application or referral is rejected by the principal registrar or as in this case the registry staff delegated to consider the matter. Section 35(3) provides:The principal registrar may reject an application or referral on any of the following grounds– (a) the application or referral is made by a person who is not authorised to make it;(b) the application or referral is made after the expiry of the period within which it is required to be made under this Act;(c) the application or referral does not otherwise comply with this Act, an enabling Act or the rules. Section 210 of the Act permits the principal registrar to delegate a function conferred on the principal registrar under the Act or an enabling Act to a registry staff member.[4][4]The Act s 210(2)(b). Section 35(4) of the Act provides:If the principal registrar rejects an application or referral, or accepts an application or referral on conditions—(a) the principal registrar must notify the applicant that the applicant may request the principal registrar to refer the decision to the tribunal for review; and(b) if the applicant makes the request, the principal registrar must refer the decision to the tribunal for review.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.