Kime v Klepper

In the matter of Kime v Klepper, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) addressed a dispute arising from a building contract. The applicants, Catherine Mary Kime and Craig Kime, sought to have their domestic building dispute resolved by QCAT, claiming that the respondent, Tony Klepper, was unlicensed and therefore their contract was terminated. The respondent argued that the dispute should be resolved by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) under its Early Dispute Resolution (EDR) process, and that QCAT lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of evidence that the dispute had been submitted to the QBCC.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants had complied with the requirements of section 77(2) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld). This section stipulates that the QBCC has a broad role in resolving building disputes, and that QCAT’s jurisdiction is contingent upon the applicants' compliance with the QBCC’s dispute resolution processes. The Tribunal had to determine whether the applicants had taken steps to submit their dispute to the QBCC or attempted to comply with the QBCC’s processes, and whether the QBCC had any role in resolving the particular dispute.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had not provided evidence of compliance with section 77(2) of the QBCC Act, nor had they submitted their dispute to the QBCC for assessment. The Tribunal noted that while the QBCC's Consumer Building Guide and Fact Sheets indicated an EDR process for domestic building disputes, there was no clear evidence that this process applied to disputes involving terminated contracts. The Tribunal also highlighted the lack of clarity in the QBCC’s operational processes, which made it difficult to ascertain whether the dispute fell within the QBCC's jurisdiction. As a result, the Tribunal concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the applicants' domestic building dispute.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed both the application filed by the applicants and the counter-application filed by the respondent. The orders reflected the Tribunal's findings, confirming that neither party's application was within its jurisdiction due to the lack of compliance with the QBCC's dispute resolution process.