Jorg v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

CITATION: Jorg v Queensland Building and Construction Commission  [2016] QCAT 364

PARTIES:	Franz Jorg and Christina Jorg (Applicants)
v
Queensland Building and Construction Commission (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: GAR264-15

MATTER TYPE:	General administrative review matters
HEARING DATES:	22 July 2016 and 23 September 2016

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Member Kanowski

DELIVERED ON: 12 October 2016

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.    The decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission made on 23 April 2015 to decline Mr and Mrs Jorg’s claim under the statutory insurance scheme is confirmed.

2.    Mr and Mrs Jorg’s application for additional time to make written submissions (filed on 27 September 2016) is refused.

3.    Mr and Mrs Jorg’s application for further directions (filed on 30 September 2016) is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – EXTERNAL REVIEW OF DECISION – statutory insurance scheme for residential construction work – whether contract was with licensed contractor – whether fraudulent claim made that a relevant licence was held

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) s 69(2)

B M Farage Pty Ltd as trustee for Farage Discretionary Family Trust v Queensland Building Services Authority [2003] QCCTB 11

REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs Jorg appeared for themselves

RESPONDENT: The Queensland Building and Construction Commission was represented by Mrs Kristie Joyce (in-house lawyer)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1. This is a review of a decision made by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) to decline a claim by Mr and Mrs Jorg under the statutory insurance scheme for defective residential construction work.

2. There is no dispute that there was defective work done in relation to certain windows in the course of the construction of Mr and Mrs Jorg’s home. A number of windows have leaked. However, Mr and Mrs Jorg have run into various problems in trying to seek a remedy. At one point the QBCC directed the company which had supplied the windows to rectify the problems but that company went into liquidation. More recently the QBCC considered whether the defective work was covered under the statutory insurance scheme under the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (the QBCC Act) but the QBCC decided that the scheme did not apply.

3. The present QCAT matter is a review of the QBCC’s decision made on 23 April 2015 (as confirmed on internal review on 23 September 2015) to decline a claim under the statutory insurance scheme.

4. In a nutshell, the QBCC’s position is that the defective work was done under a contract between the Jorgs and the window manufacturer / installer. The window company, says the QBCC, did not have the requisite licence which would have given rise to a statutory insurance policy. Nor, according to the QBCC, did the window company fraudulently claim to hold such a licence.

5. The Jorgs’ position, on the other hand, is that the work was done by a licensed builder, Mr Douglas Rex Southern (known as Rex), and so their contractual relationship with Mr Southern gave rise to a statutory insurance policy.…