Hendy v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2025] QCAT 388

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Hendy v Queensland Building and Construction Commission & Anor [2025] QCAT 388

PARTIES:

NIGEL HENDY

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

(first respondent)

STAR BUILDING SERVICES PTY LTD

(second respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR613-24

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

13 October 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Lambie

ORDERS:

The decision of the first respondent to disallow the applicant’s claim under the statutory insurance scheme is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – General Administrative Review – application by building owner to review a decision by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission to reject a claim by building owner – whether the building owner validly terminated a building contract – what is substantial breach

CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – DISCHARGE, BREACH AND DEFENCES TO ACTIONS FOR BREACH – REPUDIATION AND NON-PERFORMANCE – whether notice of intention to terminate contract complied with – what is sufficient notice to the party in breach – Generally – contractual right of termination – whether right to terminate at common law – whether notice effective to terminate on another ground

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld)

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Byrnes v Jokana Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 41

Elderslie Property Investments No 2 Pty Ltd v Dunn [2008] QCA 158
Freedom Homes Pty Ltd v Botros & Anor [2000] 2 Qd R 377
Harper Properties Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2020] QCAT 56
Hopper & Anor v Queensland Building and Construction Commission (No 2) [2019] QCAT 212
Hounslow LBC v Twickenham Garden Developments Ltd [1971] 1 Ch 233
Kim v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2025] QCAT 217
MacDonald v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2014] QCAT 158
Mitchamy Developments Pty Ltd v Adams & Anor [2010] QCAT 484
Miller v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2022] QCAT 151
Murphy Corporation Ltd v Acumen Design and Development (Queensland) Pty Limited & Anor (1995) BCL 274
Qline Interiors Pty Ltd v Jezer Construction Group Pty Ltd [2002] QSC 88
Re White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd [1990] QSC 10
Schofield v Queensland Building and Construction Commission & Anor [2019] QCAT 73
Shepherd v Felt and Textiles of Australia Ltd (1931) 45 CLR 359
Stickney v Keeble [1915] AC 386

Yendex Pty Ltd v Prince Constructions Pty Ltd [1988] QSCFC 62

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 21 March 2022, the applicant (Mr Hendy) and the second respondent (‘Star’) entered a contract for the construction of a new home at Jindalee. On 22 January 2024, Mr Hendy issued a termination notice (‘the Termination Notice’) to Star and, on 6 February 2024, lodged a Non-Completion Claim with the first respondent (‘the Commission’). On 16 May…

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 Hendy 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 388
Decision Date: 13 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hendy v Queensland Building and Construction Commission, the applicant, Mr. Hendy, sought a review of a decision by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission that disallowed his claim under a statutory insurance scheme. Mr. Hendy argued that he had validly terminated a building contract and was therefore entitled to compensation. The Commission held that Mr. Hendy's termination was not valid, and his claim was rejected. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal was tasked with reviewing the Commission’s decision.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr. Hendy had validly terminated the building contract, and if so, whether his termination was effective. The central question was whether the notice given by Mr. Hendy to the contractor complied with the terms of the contract and whether it was sufficient to terminate the contract. Additionally, the Tribunal considered whether the notice could be effective to terminate the contract on another ground, such as the contractor's substantial breach of contract.

The Tribunal held that Mr. Hendy's notice of termination did not comply with the contractual terms and was not sufficient to terminate the contract. The Tribunal found that the notice did not clearly and unambiguously communicate the intention to terminate, as required by the contract. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the contractor had not committed a substantial breach of contract that would justify termination under common law. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the Commission’s decision to disallow Mr. Hendy’s claim under the statutory insurance scheme.

The Tribunal’s decision underscores the importance of clear and unambiguous communication in terminating a building contract. The Tribunal’s ruling highlights that strict compliance with contractual terms is necessary to validly terminate a contract, and that mere dissatisfaction or frustration does not suffice. The final orders confirmed the disallowance of Mr. Hendy's claim under the statutory insurance scheme, leaving him without recourse to the compensation he sought.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision of the first respondent to disallow the applicant’s claim under the statutory insurance scheme is confirmed.

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.