Hiscock v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

[2024] QCAT 52

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Hiscock v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2024] QCAT 52

PARTIES:

STEVEN WILLIAM HISCOCK

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

GAR240-22

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

18 January 2024

DECISION OF:

Member Scott-Mackenzie

ORDERS:

1.      The application by the applicant filed 14 June 2022 for an extension of the time to apply to the Tribunal for external review of the internal review decisions is dismissed.

2.      The application by the applicant filed 14 June 2022 for external review of the internal review decisions is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – APPLICATION FOR EXTERNAL REVIEW OF INTERNAL REVIEW DECISIONS – APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME – whether Tribunal should grant an extension of time to apply to the Tribunal for external review of an internal review decision – whether the Tribunal is able to extend time to apply to the Tribunal for external review of an internal review decision

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 67WC, s 86, s 86F, s 87

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 17, s 33, s 61

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld), schedule 1, schedule 6

All Systems Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2022] QCAT 237
Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman & Anor [2011] QCAT 229
Jensen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2017] QCAT 232
Queensland Building and Construction Commission v Watkins [2014] QCA 172
Sunup Solar Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2015] QCAT 435

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

Application

1. The applicant, on 14 June 2022, applied to the Tribunal for external review of the following internal review decisions:

   (a)the decision of the respondent’s Principal Review Officer, Ms Tyler, given on 19 July 2021 (insurance internal review decision); and

   (b)the decision of Ms Tyler given on 19 July 2021 (fifth scope of works internal review decision),

   (together, internal review decisions) (application for external review). The application was not filed within the time prescribed by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (QBCC Act).

2. On the same day as filing the application for external review, the applicant made application to the Tribunal for an extension of the time to apply to the Tribunal for external review of the decisions (application for extension of time).

3. The respondent, on 5 September 2022, filed submissions opposing the extension of time (respondent’s submissions).

4. The applicant filed two affidavits of his lawyer, Mr Sulman, the first affirmed on 21 September 2022 and the second on 7 October 2022. The first affidavit complains about the late filing of the respondent’s submissions. It was cured by further directions given on 13 September 2022. The affidavit may be put to one side.

5. The second affidavit deposes to the reason for the application for external review (Mr Sulman’s second affidavit).

Background

1. The background to the application is summarised in the respondent’s submissions. It is not disputed by the applicant.

2. On 19 May 2017 the applicant, Ms Gorman, and Belazzo Homes Pty Ltd (Belazzo Homes) entered into a contract for the construction of a home at 22 Fingal Street, Tarragindi (contract).

3. On about 23 March 2018 the work was completed.

First complaint

1. On 13 September 2019 the respondent received a complaint from Ms Gorman concerning alleged defective work carried out by Belazzo Homes (first complaint). The complaint included the following items of work:

Item	Observed	Location	Description
1.	19/08/2019	External	Sealants on perimeter pulling away and shrinking, I would not have expected this after a new build.
2.	19/08/2019	External	Tiles - tiled up to timber trim allowing water to egress and not waterproofed.
3.	19/08/2019	External	Skirting Tiles carried on the overhang and not flush with the flashing.
4.	21/10/2018	Upstairs study area	Reported leak of water through plasterboard, unsure if waterproofing is compromised.
5.	15/04/2019	External	Grouting - fragile. Broken after one professional pressure clean.
6.	28/04/2019	External	Efflorescence staining from the external deck tile area drains from the rooftop deck to drainage point at the bottom of rooftop stairs. No drainage system for water from this point other than draining down the face of house wall leaving calcification.

1. On 19 November 2019 the applicant, Ms Gorman, and Belazzo Homes entered into a contract for rectification work (rectification contract).

2. On 5 December 2019 the respondent informed Ms Gorman a direction to rectify would not be given to Belazzo Homes, and the Queensland Home Warranty Scheme (Scheme) was unable to provide cover for the items in the first complaint.

3. On about 8 July 2020 Belazzo Homes was wound up.

Second and third complaints

1. On 5 August 2020 the Commission received a second complaint from Ms Gorman concerning alleged defective work carried out by Belazzo Homes (second complaint). The second complaint included the following items of work:

Item	Observed	Location	Description
1.	20/05/2020	External	Skip bin left on site. Contacted skip bin company. Refusing to remove until builder pays, owners have paid for out of own pocket as house to be listed for sale as per court order.
2.	24/07/2020	Living room	External water leak draining to plaster in living area leaving water mark on internal living room roof painted area.
3.	24/07/2020	External	External water leak from area subject to recent repair work. Unsealed gap between tiles and external doorway.

1. On 2 September 2020 the respondent received a third complaint from the applicant concerning alleged defective work carried out by Belazzo Homes under the rectification contract (third complaint). The third complaint included the following item of work:

Item	Observed	Location	Description
1.	21/06/2020	Living room	The underside of the external door has not been seal. Resulting in water entering the house. Resulting in water marks to the lower ceiling (lounge room).

1. The respondent merged the second and third complaints with the approval of the applicant and Ms Gorman.

2. On 2 November 2020 the respondent informed the applicant a direction to rectify would not be given to Belazzo Homes for the items in the second and third complaints and the respondent would assess whether there is any entitlement to assistance under the Scheme.

3. On 4 November 2020 the respondent informed the applicant the claim under the Scheme had been allowed for 3 items, and provided a scope of works for the rectification of defective work (first scope of works). The claim was disallowed for 1 item, the skip bin (first scheme decision).

4. On 18 November 2020 the respondent informed the applicant the claim under the Scheme had been approved in the sum of $11,751.00.

5. Newnham Constructions Pty Ltd (Newnham Constructions) was the successful tenderer to carry out the rectification work in accordance with the first scope of works, and a contract was subsequently entered into between the applicant and Newnham Constructions.

Fourth complaint

1. On 17 December 2020 the Commission received a fourth complaint from Ms Gorman concerning alleged defective work carried out by Belazzo Homes under the ratification contract (fourth complaint). The fourth complaint included the following items of work:

Item	Observed	Location	Description
1.	11/12/2020	Main lounge room	Rectifying builder has identified cold spots to main lounge room.
2.	11/12/2020	Living area	Rectifying builder has identified cold spots to living area.
3.	11/12/2020	Under stairs storage to level 1	Rectifying builder has identified cold spots to under stairs storage to level 1.
4.	11/12/2020	Back LHS bedroom	Rectifying builder has identified cold spots to inside the robe to the back LHS bedroom.

5.	11/12/2020	Above the external door to the upper balcony	Rectifying builder has identified cold spots to above the external door to the upper balcony.
6.	11/12/2020	Main bedroom - level 1	Rectifying builder has identified cold spots to the main bedroom above the mirror to level 1.
7.	13/12/2020	Rooftop deck	Cupboard under external stairs - thermal imaging indicates moisture.
8.	13/12/2020	Study	Study area upstairs adjacent to cupboard under external stairs. Thermal imaging indicates moisture.
9.	13/12/2020	Lounge room	Downstairs leak to lounge room.
10.	13/12/2020	Upstairs lounge room	Upstairs lounge room bulkhead - Thermal imaging indicates moisture.
11.	13/12/2020	Main bathroom	Water ingress in front of mirror.
12.	13/12/2020	Stairs to upper landing and roof top deck	Stairs to upper landing and roof top deck – potential leak point causing internal moisture.
13.	13/12/2020	External	Potential leak point advised by builder. cladding not installed correctly.
14.	13/12/2020	External door to stairs	Break in cladding above external door to stairs - potential leak point.
15.	13/12/2020	Rooftop deck	Potential leak point to upstairs living area and main bathroom.

1. On 13 January 2021 the respondent informed Ms Gorman a direction to rectify would not be given to Belazzo Homes because it was in liquidation, but that a defective work list would be sent to the liquidator to provide an opportunity for some items in the fourth complaint to be rectified.

2. On 3 February 2021 the respondent informed the applicant the work in the defective work list had not been rectified, and the respondent would assess whether there is any entitlement to assistance under the Scheme.

3. On 5 February 2021 the respondent informed the applicant a claim had been approved and provided a scope of works for the rectification work (second scope of works).

4. On 22 February 2021 the respondent provided the applicant with an amended scope of works for the rectification work (third scope of works).

Fifth complaint

1. On 15 March 2021 the respondent received a fifth complaint from the applicant concerning alleged defective work carried out by Belazzo Homes under the contract (fifth complaint). The fifth complaint included the following items of work:

Item	Observed	Location	Description
1.	04/01/2021	External walls	External cladding (northern wall and eastern wall). Possibly leaking.
2.	10/03/2021	External walls	Front door leaking. May be junction above.

1. On 9 April 2021 the respondent informed the applicant a direction to rectify would not be given to Belazzo Homes because it was in liquidation, but that a defective work list would be sent to the liquidator to provide an opportunity for some items in the fifth complaint to be rectified.

2. On 30 April 2021 the respondent informed the applicant that the work included on the defective work list had not been rectified, and the respondent would assess whether there is any entitlement to assistance under the Scheme.

3. On 4 May 2021 Belazzo Homes was deregistered.

4. On 6 May 2021 the respondent informed the applicant that the claim under the Scheme had been allowed for 15 items but disallowed for 1 item, the floating floors (insurance decision). It provided two scopes of works for rectification of the defective work (SW-55501 and SW-55102 respectively) (fourth scope of works and fifth scope of works respectively).

5. The above background gives context to the applications now before the Tribunal. The following background is particularly relevant to the applications.

Internal review of the insurance decision and fifth scope of works decision

1. On 29 June 2021 the applicant applied to the respondent for internal review of the insurance decision and the fifth scope of works decision.

2. On 19 July 2021 the respondent made decisions on the application for internal review of the insurance decision and fifth scope of works decision, the insurance internal review decision and fifth scope of works internal review decision respectively, the decisions the subject of the applications now before the Tribunal.

Legislation

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 be made, by another entity under the enabling Act.[1]

   [1]QCAT Act, s 17(1).

2. Section 87 of the QBCC Act provides that a person affected by a reviewable decision of the Commission may apply, as provided under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act), to the Tribunal for a review of the decision. A decision about the scope of works to be undertaken under the Scheme to rectify or complete tribunal work is a reviewable decision.[2] It is not a reviewable decision if 28 days have elapsed since the decision was served on the building contractor and the contractor has not, within that time, applied to the Tribunal for a review of the decision.[3]

   [2]QBCC Act, s 86(1)(g).

   [3]Ibid, s 86F(1)(c).

3. An application to review a reviewable decision must be made by filing it in the registry within 28 days after the relevant day.[4] Here, the relevant day is the day the applicant was notified of the decision.[5]

   [4]QCAT Act, s 33(3).

   [5]Ibid, s 33(4)(a).

4. The Tribunal, under section 61(1) of the QCAT Act, may, by order, extend a time limit fixed for the start of a proceeding by the Act or an enabling Act, extend or shorten a time limit fixed by the Act, an enabling Act, or the rules, or waive compliance with another procedural requirement under the Act, an enabling Act, or the rules. An extension or waiver may be given under section 61(1) even if the time for complying with the relevant requirement has passed.

5. Importantly, the Tribunal cannot extend or shorten a time limit or waive compliance with another procedural requirement if to do so would cause prejudice or detriment, not able to be remedied by an appropriate order for costs or damages, to a party or potential party to a proceeding.[6]

   [6]Ibid, s 61(3).

6. I turn now to consider the application for an extension of the time to apply for external review of the two decisions, the insurance internal review decision and the scope of works internal review decision. First, the former decision.

Insurance internal review decision

1. The insurance internal review decision was sent by the respondent to the applicant by email on 19 July 2021. If that be the day on which he was notified of the decision, he was required to file the application by 16 August 2021.

2. The applicant asserts in the application he did not receive the decision until 9 August 2021. If so, he was required to file any application to review the decision by 6 September 2021.

3. The application was filed on 14 June 2022, about eleven months after the decision was sent by email and about ten months after the applicant asserts he received it.

4. The power in the Tribunal to extend a time limit fixed for the start of a proceeding by the QCAT Act or an enabling Act is found in section 61(1)(a) of the Act. It is a discretionary power.

5. As was said by Member Traves (as she then was) in Jensen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[7]:

   Applications under s 61 have been approached by the Tribunal as a two stage process: first, by determining whether an order under s 61 would cause prejudice or detriment not able to be remedied by a costs order or damages; and secondly, in the absence of prejudice or detriment, consideration of other factors relevant to the exercise of the discretion contemplated by s 61.[8]

   [7][2017] QCAT 232.

   [8]Ibid, at [66].

6. The respondent concedes it will not be unduly prejudiced if the Tribunal were to extend the time to apply for external review of the decision.

7. In Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman & Anor[9], Judicial Member Thomas set out the factors, usually in combination with one another, relevant in the exercise of the discretions to extend time for the commencement of a proceeding or to appeal:

   (a)whether a satisfactory explanation (or “good reason”) is shown to account for the delay;

   (b)the strength of the case the applicant wishes to bring (assuming it is possible for some view on this to be formed upon the preliminary material);

   (c)prejudice to adverse parties;

   (d)length of the delay, noting that a short delay is usually easier to excuse than a lengthy one;

   (e)overall, whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension. This usually calls for some analysis of the above factors considered in combination.[10]

   [9][2011] QCAT 229.

   [10]Ibid, at [9].

Explanation for the delay

1. Mr Sulman’s second affidavit is brief. In paragraph 2 he affirms:

   The reason that the present application for External Review of the Respondent's Internal Review of its Decision is before QCAT is predominantly because the Respondent refused or neglected to respond to the Applicant's written communications in a timely fashion and was obstructive and unhelpful following its Decision to refuse his claim for water damage to the timber floating floor on his property and to include it within the scope of remedial building works approved under the Home Warranty Insurance Scheme.

   (Emphasis added)

2. A bundle of correspondence is exhibited to the affidavit. It is said to be “... indicative of the difficulties that the Applicant has had communicating with the Respondent in relation to the matter.”[11] The bundle includes the following:

   [11]Mr Sulman’s second affidavit, para 3.

   (a)email Ms Tyler to the applicant and Ms Gorman sent 5 July 2021. The email. responds to an email sent by the applicant to Ms Tyler on 2 July 2021;

   (b)letter applicant’s lawyers, Matthew Sulman & Associates, to Ms Tyler and others dated 5 August 2021;

   (c)Australian Security and Investments Commission search of Belazzo Homes;

   (d)email Ms Tyler to Mr Sulman sent 9 August 2021 responding to the letter dated 5 August 2021;

   (e)emails exchanged by the respondent and Acting Senior Assessment Officer, Resolution Services, Ms Buckley, and the applicant on 16, 19 and 23 August 2021;

   (f)letter applicant’s lawyers to Ms Tyler dated 1 September 2021 responding to the email sent 9 August 2021;

   (g)emails exchanged by Ms Tyler, Mr Sulman and the respondent’s Acting Manager, Internal Review Unit, Mr Tan, on 9 August 2021 and 1 and 2 September 2021;

   (h)letter respondent to the applicant dated 17 September 2021;

   (i)letter applicant’s lawyers to Ms Buckley and Ms Tyler dated 21 September 2021 responding to the letter dated 17 September 2021;

   (j)email Mr Sulman to Ms Buckley sent to 23 September 2021;

   (k)emails exchanged by Mr Sulman, Ms Buckley, and the applicant on 30 September 2021;

   (l)email applicant to Ms Buckley sent to 30 September 2021;

   (m)emails exchanged by the applicant and Ms Buckley on 30 September 2021 and 5 October 2021;

   (n)emails exchanged by the applicant and Ms Buckley on 30 September 2021 and 5 October 2021;

   (o)letter applicant’s lawyers to Ms Buckley dated 5 October 2021;

   (p)emails exchanged by the applicant and Ms Buckley on 30 September 2021 and 5 and 11 October 2021; and

   (q)complaint applicant to Queensland Ombudsman (undated).

3. The correspondence does not demonstrate the asserted difficulty in communication between the applicant and respondent. Correspondence was answered promptly. The applicant may not have obtained the outcome sought by him, but that is a different matter.

1. Further, and in any case, the correspondence does not explain the delay between receipt of the decisions and the filing of the application for external review. The bundle of correspondence commences with the letter sent to by the applicant’s lawyers to Ms Tyler and others dated 5 August 2021. It ends with the email sent by Mr Sulman to Ms Buckley on 11 October 2021. There is no explanation for the delay between 11 October 2021 and the filing of the application for external review on 14 June 2022.

2. The explanation for the delay, even if accepted, is unsatisfactory. There is no explanation for the delay after 11 October 2021, a delay of about eight months.

Strength of the case

1. The insurance internal review decision concerns floating floors. The respondent, in its submissions, draws attention to schedule 6 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld) (QBCC Regulation), the definition of defective work in part 3, the definition of residential construction work in section 67WC of the QBCC Act and the building work excluded by schedule 1 to the Regulation. Floating floors are excluded by section 13(1) of the schedule with the consequence they are not building work and therefore not primary insurable work or residential construction work.

2. It follows, at least prima facie, the case the applicant wants to bring is not strong. Having said that, conscious as I am there is limited material filed in the Tribunal, I am not prepared to reach a concluded view on the strength of the applicant’s case. Instead, I will assume it has merit.[12]

   [12]Anderson-Barr v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QCAT 438, per Member Cranwell at [13].

Prejudice

1. The respondent, as I have said, concedes it will not be unduly prejudiced if the Tribunal were to extend the time to apply for external review of the insurance internal review decision. Notwithstanding the concession, it draws attention to the passage from the decision of Member Traves in Jensen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission. There, at paragraph [94], the learned Member said:

   The 28 day time period is there for a reason. In administrative review proceedings it is important that time limits are observed so that the processes and procedures followed by the administrative decision-maker are not hampered or detrimentally affected and so that the statute, more broadly, operates effectively.

2. The passage continues:

   ... The importance of adherence to time limitations in the context of judicial review was put strongly by Lord Diplock in O’Reilly v Mackman:

   The public interest in good administration requires that public authorities and third parties should not be kept in suspense as to the legal validity of a decision the authority has reached in purported exercise of decision-making powers for any longer period than is absolutely necessary in fairness to the person affected by the decision.^[32]

   The effect of delay on the quality of justice generally has been held to be one of the most important influences motivating legislatures to enact limitation periods for commencing actions. Other rationales are: that relevant evidence is likely to get lost; it is oppressive to a defendant to allow an action to be brought long after the circumstances which give rise to it have passed; people should be able to arrange their affairs and utilise their resources on the basis that claims can no longer be made against them; insurers, public institutions and businesses have a significant interest in knowing that they have no liabilities beyond a definite period.^[34] The final rationale for limitation periods is that the public interest requires that disputes be settled as quickly as possible.

   In Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor, the High Court held:

   In enacting limitation periods, legislatures have regard to all these rationales. A limitation period should not be seen therefore as an arbitrary cut off point unrelated to the demands of justice or the general welfare of society. It represents the legislature's judgment that the welfare of society is best served by causes of action being litigated within the limitation period, notwithstanding that the enactment of that period may often result in a good cause of action being defeated. Against this background, I do not see any warrant for treating provisions that provide for an extension of time for commencing an action as having a standing equal to or greater than those provisions that enact limitation periods. A limitation provision is the general rule; an extension provision is the exception to it. The extension provision is a legislative recognition that general conceptions of what justice requires in particular categories of cases may sometimes be overridden by the facts of an individual case. The purpose of a provision such as s 31 is “to eliminate the injustice a prospective plaintiff might suffer by reason of the imposition of a rigid time limit within which an action was to be commenced.” But whether injustice has occurred must be evaluated by reference to the rationales of the limitation period that has barred the action. The discretion to extend should therefore be seen as requiring the applicant to show that his or her case is a justifiable exception to the rule that the welfare of the State is best served by the limitation period in question. Accordingly, when an applicant seeks an extension of time to commence an action after a limitation period has expired, he or she has the positive burden of demonstrating that the justice of the case requires that extension.

   Once the legislature has selected a limitation period, to allow the commencement of an action outside that period is prima facie prejudicial to the defendant who would otherwise have the benefit of the limitation.[13]

   (Citations omitted)

   [13]Ibid, at [93]-[97].

3. Like Member Traves, I am mindful of the difference between applications to review administrative decisions in the Tribunal and litigation in the courts. Notwithstanding, as the Member said, and I agree, the matters referred to are relevant to the exercise of the discretion to extend the time for applying to the Tribunal for review of the insurance internal review decision.

4. There has been a long delay in making the application.

5. The applicant was required to make the application within 28 days after the day he was notified of the decision. He was notified by email on 19 July 2021. He states in the application for external review he did not receive the decision until 9 August 2021. That date appears to be the date on which a copy of the decision was sent to the applicant’s lawyers by email.

6. If the first date is the date of notification, the application should have been made by 16 August 2021. If the latter date, it should have been made by 6 September 2022.

7. The length of the delay, in my opinion, is a significant matter weighing against the exercise of the discretion to extend the time for making the application.

Interests are of justice

1. In my opinion, the interests of justice do not favour the grant of an extension of time to make the application. In reaching that decision, I have taken into consideration the above factors, in particular:

   (a)the unsatisfactory explanation for the delay between the giving of the decision and 11 October 2021 and the absence of any explanation, satisfactory or otherwise, for the delay between 11 October 2021 and the filing of the application on 14 June 2022; and

   (b)the length of the delay, either about ten months or about eleven months.

2. The application for an extension of the time to apply to the Tribunal for external review of the insurance internal review decision is refused.

Fifth scope of works internal review decision

1. The respondent submits the Tribunal is without power to extend the time to apply to it for external review of the fifth scope of works internal review decision. It contends the requirement in section 86F(1)(c) of the QBCC Act for applying to the Tribunal for external review of a decision is substantive, not procedural, with the consequence the Tribunal is not able to extend the time under section 61 of the QCAT Act.

2. The submission and contention are supported by authority.

3. In Queensland Building and Construction Commission v Watkins[14], the Queensland Court of Appeal (Margret McMurdo P, Morrison JA, and Douglas J), in relation to a provision of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (Qld) in identical terms to section 86F(1)(c) of the QBCC Act, at [16], said:

   … The language of the section, in prescribing that QCAT must not review decisions of the nature described in the section if 28 days have elapsed since the relevant decision or direction, makes it correct to conclude that it is a mandatory provision having substantive rather than procedural effect. The compelling inference from the structure of the Act is that applications for review of such matters should be made expeditiously to avoid further delay in the completion or execution of rectification work.

   [14][2014] QCA 172.

4. The decision was applied by the Tribunal in Sunup Solar Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[15] and again in All Systems Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[16]. In the former decision, Member Traves held:

   The issue arises as to whether s 61 of the QCAT Act can be used to extend the time limit in s 86F of the QBCC Act. It is settled that the power in s 61(1)(b) to extend a time limit under an enabling Act can not be used to extend time under s 86F of the QBCC Act being a mandatory substantive rule of law which defines and limits the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.[17]

   (Citation omitted)

   [15][2015] QCAT 435.

   [16][2022] QCAT 237.

   [17]Ibid, at [61].

5. The application to extend the time to apply to the Tribunal for external review of the fifth scope of works internal review decision must be dismissed.

Orders

1. The orders of the Tribunal are:

   1.The application by the applicant filed 14 June 2022 for an extension of the time to apply to the Tribunal for external review of the internal review decisions is dismissed.

   2.The application by the applicant filed 14 June 2022 for external review of the internal review decisions is dismissed.