Klimczyk v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Klimczyk v Queensland Building and Construction Commission  [2025] QCAT 391

PARTIES:

PARICK MICHAEL KLIMCZYK

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR340-22

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

14 October 2025

HEARING DATE:

1 May 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Richard Oliver

ORDERS:

1.     Items 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 14 of the Direction to Rectify and or Complete No 0109436 are confirmed.

2.     Items 5, 11 and 15 of the Direction to Rectify and or Complete No 0109436 are set aside.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – PROCEDURE –DIRECTION TO RECTIFY – FAIRNESS – where applicant registered builder – where applicant together with his partner undertook a renovation of an existing house – where applicant undertook all renovation and new work to the existing house – where house on-sold after building work completed – where new owners made a complaint to the respondent about defective building work – where investigations undertaken and a Direction to Rectify and or Complete issued to the applicant – whether applicant responsible for the building work – whether items of complaint defective building work – whether unfair to direct rectification

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld), s 20, s 24

Buglar v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2025] QCAT 371

Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland [2010] QCATA 58

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondent:	D Davison of counsel instructed by Holding Redlich

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The applicant is a registered builder. In June 2018, his wife Joan Leahy purchased a residential property in Seven Hills in Brisbane as the family’s permanent place of residence. Soon after the purchase they decided to embark on a major renovation of the house and certified plans were prepared by Mr Eyers of Robert Eyers Design & Drafting. This included raising the existing weatherboard house, building in underneath and also building a major extension at the rear of the house. It also included  an inground swimming pool. To comply with regulatory requirements, the applicant took out a Home Warranty Insurance Scheme policy for the work in his name in January 2019 with the Commission. The “contract value” of the work under the policy was $100,000.00.

2. There was no contract in writing between Ms Leahy and the applicant for the building work, which given their relationship at the time, was not unusual. It seems clear that from the beginning this was a joint venture. The plans prepared for the renovation nominated both Mr Klimczyk and Ms Leahy as the clients for the project.

3. The renovation work was completed, including the pool which the applicant says was solely Ms Leahy’s responsibility. He maintains this was not part of the work he carried out. The applicant and Ms Leahy, and their children, continued to live in the house until April 2021 when it was sold. During this period, the applicant says he and…