Jones v Queensland Building Services Authority

In the case of Jones v Queensland Building Services Authority, the applicant, Ms Sandra Fay Jones, sought a review of a decision by the Queensland Building Services Authority (Authority) to disallow a claim under the Statutory Insurance Scheme for defective tiling work on a concourse between the residence and an inground swimming pool at her property in Cashmere. The central issue before the Tribunal was whether the tiling work constituted "primary building work" or "associated building work" under the Queensland Building Services Authority Regulations 2003. The determination of this issue was crucial, as the insurance policy only covered defects in "primary building work."

The Tribunal considered the definitions of "primary building work" and "associated building work" as set out in sections 11 and 12 of the Regulations. "Primary building work" includes the construction of a residence, while "associated building work" covers items such as fencing, landscaping, and swimming pools not part of a bathroom. The Authority argued that the tiling work beyond a notional line from the edge of the gutter to the house footing was "associated building work." However, the Tribunal found that the tiled concourse area was a continuous and integral part of the residence, forming a usable living space. The continuous surface, poured in concrete as a single pour and overlaid with the same tiles, was constructed as part of the "construction of the residence" and included in the contract price.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the tiling work constituted "primary building work" and was not "associated building work." The Tribunal set aside the Authority's decision of 7 December 2009 and allowed the application, finding that the defective work fell within the definition of "primary building work." The decision ensured that Ms Jones would receive the benefit of the insurance policy for the rectification of the tiling defects.