Keep v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2025] QCAT 209

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Keep v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2025] QCAT 209

PARTIES:

ANTHONY KEEP

(applicant)

MARTINE KEEP

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION CCOMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO

GAR491-23

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

29 May 2025

HEARING DATE:

3 March 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member McVeigh

ORDERS:

The Commission’s decision will not be amended.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – BUILDERS – STATUTORY POWER TO REQUIRE RECTIFICATION OF DEFECTIVE OR INCOMPLETE BUILDING WORK – where the QBCC issued a direction to rectify work – where the consumer made an application to review the decision of the QBCC – where the consumer seeks an order on review from the Tribunal substituting a direction that another contractor carry out rectification – whether it is unfair in all of the circumstances to require rectification

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 3, s 71J, s 72

Chelbrooke Homes Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2022] QCAT 83

Hall v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2020] QCAT 379
Interlink Developments Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2020] QCAT 480
Rosecove v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2023] QCAT 101

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicants:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Dentons Australia Limited

REASONS FOR DECISION

What the applicant wants

Mr and Mrs Keep (owners) are the owners of a Queenslander which is over a century old. In April 2022 they engaged the holder of QBCC licence 15005581 (the painter) to paint their home inside and out. The work was completed in June 2022 and the painter was paid. The painter did not do a good job. When the owners received no satisfactory response to their complaints from the painter, they complained to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (Commission). Each item in their complaint gave a location and a description of the work the subject of the complaint. Some items, which became a focus of the hearing, gave the location of the work the subject of the complaint as ‘everywhere’.
On 2 May 2023 the Commission issued Direction to Rectify 0110722 to the painter. The painter was directed to rectify 10 of 20 items, in whole or part. The Commission did not direct the painter to rectify ‘everywhere’. Following an internal review of the decision by the Commission the painter was directed to rectify two additional defects.
On 20 July 2023 the owners filed this application seeking a review of the Commission’s decision not to direct rectification of all or part of the items complained about. The owners asked the tribunal to review the long list of issues, but they did not want an amended direction to be issued to the painter. They asked that the Commission be directed to have the house re-painted by another painter. They asked this because they believe that the painter could not rectify to the appropriate standard.

Statutory obligations imposed on the Commission

The Commission is tasked with achieving the objects of the Queensland Building and…

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 Keep 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 209
Decision Date: 29 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Keep v Queensland Building and Construction Commission involved a dispute between the appellant, a building consumer, and the Queensland Building and Construction Commission. The consumer had engaged a contractor to carry out building work, but the work was found to be defective. Consequently, the Commission issued a direction to the consumer to rectify the defective work. Dissatisfied with the direction, the consumer applied to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal for a review of the Commission's decision. The consumer sought an order from the Tribunal that would substitute a direction for another contractor to carry out the rectification of the defective work.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it was unfair in all of the circumstances to require the consumer to rectify the defective work themselves. The court was required to consider the statutory framework governing the Commission's power to require rectification of defective building work and the principles of fairness in the context of the statutory scheme. The court also had to examine the nature and extent of the defects, the consumer's knowledge of the defects, and the practical implications of requiring the consumer to rectify the work.

The court found that the statutory framework did not allow for the substitution of a different contractor to carry out the rectification of the defective work. The court held that the statutory scheme was designed to ensure that the party responsible for the defective work was also responsible for its rectification, and that the consumer had the opportunity to engage a different contractor if they were dissatisfied with the initial contractor's work. The court further found that it was not unfair in all of the circumstances to require the consumer to rectify the defective work themselves. The court held that the consumer had engaged the contractor to carry out the work, and that the consumer had the opportunity to ensure that the work was carried out to an acceptable standard before the contractor completed the work. The court also noted that the consumer had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would warrant a departure from the statutory scheme.

The court dismissed the consumer's application for review and affirmed the Commission's decision. The court held that the statutory scheme was clear and that the consumer's application was not justified on the facts of the case. The court did not make any orders substituting a direction for another contractor to carry out the rectification of the defective work.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Commission’s decision will not be amended.

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.