Leo v Queensland Building Services Authority - [2012] QCAT 640

CITATION:

Leo v Queensland Building Services Authority and Anor [2012] QCAT 640

PARTIES:	Michael Gregory Leo (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Queensland Building Services Authority (First Respondent) Joseph Meznaric (Second Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

GAR052-11

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:

14-15 May and 8 June 2012

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Michelle Howard, Member

DELIVERED ON:

12 December 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The decision of the Queensland Building Services Authority on 14 February 2012 to issue Mr Leo with Direction to Rectify and/or Complete Number 35818 is confirmed.

2. Michael Gregory Leo must pay Joseph Meznaric’s costs fixed in the sum of $14,690.21 within 28 days of these orders.

3. Michael Gregory Leo’s application for costs is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – review of Queensland Building Services Authority decision to issue direction to rectify – where builder claims his unconventional building methods will meet performance requirements – where engineering and building evidence that construction inadequate – where no certification or engineering certificates obtained by builder despite advanced stage of construction

Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991, s 72, schedule 2
Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000, s 90
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 19, 20, 24, 33

R v His Honour Judge Miller and Builder’s Registration Board ex parte Graham Evans and Co (Qld) Pty Ltd [1987] 2 Qd R 446
Laidlaw v QBSA [2010] QCAT 70

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:

Mr Leo represented himself

RESPONDENT:

Mr B Turnbull of HWL Ebsworth Lawyers represented the Queensland Building Services Authority

Mr I Kennedy of McLaughlins Lawyers represented Mr Meznaric

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is a somewhat unusual case involving Michael Gary Leo, a builder who holds a Queensland Building Services Authority (BSA) licence as a ‘Builder-Low Rise.’ Mr Leo uses some unconventional building methods which he refers to as the guitar building system, described as a radical, lightweight system.[1] He describes himself a master builder, ‘in the medieval sense of the word’, with 50 years experience in ‘the evolution of Australia’s ‘single-skin shelter tradition.’[2]
[1] Exhibit 1, DVD at exh 3 CD-Rom entitled ‘A Smart Tip for ESD’.
[2] Exhibit 1, exhibit 4, ‘Profile’.
The level of adherence by Mr Leo with the usual standards and practices of the building industry during the construction of the house in question appears minimal. This is apparently deliberate and Mr Leo seeks to justify this on the basis of his own expertise and knowledge of building and engineering, despite the fact that he does not have engineering qualifications. Although he claims having completed an architecture degree in 1974, he also acknowledges that he is not a registered architect.[3]
[3] Exhibit 1, exhibit 4, and exhibit 4 attachment E.
Although a builder is not competent to determine structural adequacy of aspects of construction unless using standard or normal building practices, involving the use of the Australian Standards, the Building Code of Australia (BCA), and applying manufacturer’s specifications for building components, Mr Leo did not present…

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 Leo v Queensland Building Services Authority 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: [2012] QCAT 640
Decision Date: 12 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Michael Gregory Leo, sought judicial review of a decision by the Queensland Building Services Authority (QBSA) to issue a direction to rectify a non-compliant building project. Leo argued that his unconventional methods of construction would meet the performance requirements, but QBSA insisted that the construction was inadequate and required rectification. Leo's argument hinged on the lack of certification or engineering certificates for the building despite it being at an advanced stage of construction. The court was required to decide whether the QBSA's decision to issue a direction to rectify was legally sound and whether Leo's methods met the required performance standards.

The court examined the evidence provided by both parties and concluded that the building did not meet the necessary performance requirements. The evidence indicated that Leo's methods were unconventional and untested, and the lack of certification or engineering certificates meant that the building could not be deemed compliant. The court found that the QBSA's decision was based on a proper consideration of the evidence and was not flawed by any error of law. The court also found that Leo's arguments were not supported by the evidence and that his methods were not a reasonable alternative to the standard methods of construction.

The court confirmed the decision of the QBSA to issue the direction to rectify and ordered Leo to pay the respondent's costs. The court found that Leo's application for costs was not successful, and he was ordered to pay the respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $14,690.21 within 28 days of the orders. The court held that Leo's arguments were not well-founded and that the QBSA's decision was justified. The decision of the court reinforces the importance of complying with building regulations and obtaining the necessary certifications and engineering certificates to ensure that buildings meet the required performance standards.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision of the Queensland Building Services Authority on 14 February 2012 to issue Mr Leo with Direction to Rectify and/or Complete Number 35818 is confirmed.

2. Michael Gregory Leo must pay Joseph Meznaric’s costs fixed in the sum of $14,690.21 within 28 days of these orders.

3. Michael Gregory Leo’s application for costs is dismissed.

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.