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

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

HALL V QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION [2023] QCAT 379

PARTIES:

ANDREW HALL

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR536-21

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

15 August 2023

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Aughterson

ORDERS:

1. The application for miscellaneous matters filed on 26 September 2022 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES OR CALLINGS – OTHER OCCUPATIONS – building certifiers – where finding by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission of unsatisfactory conduct and professional misconduct by building certifier – where application to Tribunal for review – where application by applicant to change respondent to individual decision-maker – whether QBCC the proper respondent

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 27A, Schedule 1
Building Act 1975 (Qld), s 204
Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 6, s 20J, s 85A, s 86, s 85A, s 86B. s 86C,
s 115A
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 17, s 21, s 40

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

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

On 15 August 2023 the Tribunal dismissed the application for miscellaneous matters filed by the applicant on 26 September 2022. On 25 August 2023, the applicant filed a request for reasons for that decision. The reasons are now provided.
On 15 September 2021, the applicant filed an application to review a decision that a building certifier had engaged in unsatisfactory conduct and professional misconduct as defined under the Building Act 1975 (Qld). In the relevant ‘Decision Notice’, the applicant in the present review application was noted as an ‘affected party’. In the application to the Tribunal for review, the respondent’s details were given as Mr Adrian Tan and the Business Name as Queensland Building and Construction Commission (‘the QBCC’). Mr Tan was the Acting Manager – Internal Review Unit of the QBCC and signed the Decision Notice.
The initial Tribunal directions of 20 October 2021 and all subsequent directions have listed the QBCC as the respondent. It is the position of the applicant that Mr Tan was the decision-maker and is the proper respondent in the Tribunal proceedings, not the QBCC.
In the application for miscellaneous matters filed on 26 September 2022, the applicant sought to have the record altered with Mr Tan, ‘the individual decision-maker’, shown as the respondent. The applicant also sought a number of consequential orders, which go to what is said to be the need for all Tribunal documents to be corrected and reissued, all material to be refiled in the name of the correct respondent, action to be taken where the material filed contains false or misleading details, and for the management and training of Tribunal members and staff. If the applicant’s submission that the QBCC is not the proper respondent is without merit, it is unnecessary…

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: [2023] QCAT 379
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hall v Queensland Building and Construction Commission involved the applicant challenging the decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) regarding their review jurisdiction. The applicant sought to determine who constituted the 'decision-maker for the reviewable decision' under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act). The applicant argued that according to section 40 of the QCAT Act, a person is considered a party if they are the decision-maker for the reviewable decision. The applicant further submitted that section 21(1) of the QCAT Act mandates the decision-maker to use their best endeavours to assist the tribunal in making its decision on the review.

The court had to decide the identity of the 'decision-maker for the reviewable decision'. The applicant contended that the QBCC, which operates through natural persons, should be considered the decision-maker. The QBCC, however, argued that the relevant officer who made the decision should be the one to assist in the tribunal's review. The court considered the statutory provisions, including section 17 of the QCAT Act, which defines the tribunal's review jurisdiction, and section 204(1) of the Building Act, which mandates the QBCC to decide on unsatisfactory conduct or professional misconduct of building certifiers.

The court held that the QBCC, being the entity that made the decision, was the decision-maker for the reviewable decision. The court reasoned that the QBCC exercises its powers and functions through its Board, Commissioner, and Service Trades Council, and that the delegation of these powers to qualified officers does not change the identity of the decision-maker. The court concluded that the QBCC, as the entity that made the decision, was the party to the proceeding in the tribunal's review jurisdiction.

The court ordered that the QBCC was the decision-maker for the reviewable decision and thus the relevant party in the tribunal's review jurisdiction. The court further directed that the QBCC should use its best endeavours to assist the tribunal in making its decision on the review, in accordance with section 21(1) of the QCAT Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

In submissions in support of the application, the applicant refers to s 40 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’), which is headed ‘Parties to review jurisdiction’ and provides (emphasis added):(1) A person is a party to a proceeding in the tribunal’s review jurisdiction if the person is— (a) the applicant; or (b) the decision-maker for the reviewable decision the subject matter of the proceeding; or (c) intervening in the proceeding under section 41; or (d) joined as a party to the proceeding under section 42; or (e) someone else an enabling Act states is a party to the proceeding. (2) In a proceeding in the tribunal’s review jurisdiction, so far as is practicable, the official description of the decision-maker must be used as the party’s name instead of the decision-maker’s name. Reference is also made to s 21(1) of the QCAT Act, which provides that the decision-maker for the reviewable decision must use his or her best endeavours to help the Tribunal so that it can make its decision on the review, and to QCAT Practice Direction 3 of 2013, which reflects s 21(1) of the QCAT Act. However, the question is who is the ‘decision-maker for the reviewable decision’. Section 17 of the QCAT Act provides:(1) The tribunal’s review jurisdiction is the jurisdiction conferred on the tribunal by an enabling Act to review a decision made or taken to have been made by another entity under that Act. (2) For this Act, a decision mentioned in subsection (1) is a reviewable decision and the entity[1] that made or is taken to have made the decision is the decision-maker for the reviewable decision.[1]Under Schedule 1 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), the term ‘entity’ ‘includes a person and an unincorporated body’. As to the ‘entity’ that made the decision in the present matter, s 204(1) of the Building Act provides (emphasis added):After investigating a complaint or conducting an audit, QBCC must decide whether or not the building certifier has engaged in unsatisfactory conduct or professional misconduct. Following the making of that decision, the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (‘the QBCC Act’) provides for review, again by reference to the decision of the QBCC. Section 86 of the QBCC Act lists the reviewable decisions ‘of the commission’, including, at s 86(2), a decision under s 204 of the Building Act. The Commission carries out its powers and functions through natural persons. By s 6 of the QBCC Act, the Commission consists of the Board, the Commissioner and the Service Trades Council. By s 20J(1)(f), the role of the Commissioner includes ‘taking disciplinary and other proceedings under this Act’, while by s 115A(1) of the QBCC Act the ‘board or commissioner may delegate their functions or powers under an Act to an appropriately qualified relevant officer of the commission’. Section 27A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) provides for the delegation of functions or powers. Where an Act authorises delegation of a function or power, section 27A provides, in part:(3C) Laws apply to the delegate, and to other persons in relationship to the delegate, in the performance of the delegated function or in the exercise of a delegated power as if the delegate were the delegator. (3D) Anything done by or in relation to the delegate in relation to the delegation is taken to have been done by or in relation to the delegator.…(7) A delegated function or power that is properly performed or exercised by the delegate is taken to have been performed or exercised by the delegator.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.