Mannix v Queensland Building Services Authority

The applicants, Mr and Mrs Mannix, sought a review of a decision made by the Queensland Building Services Authority (BSA) in relation to a complaint they had made about the conduct of Mr Jamie Hallinan, a building certifier. The applicants alleged that Mr Hallinan had engaged in unsatisfactory or professional misconduct when he certified certain aspects of the building works for their house. The BSA had investigated the complaint and determined that the allegations were not substantiated. The Tribunal was required to review the BSA’s decision to determine whether the complaint was substantiated and whether the BSA’s decision was correct and preferable. The Tribunal had to consider the evidence and arguments presented by both parties and apply the relevant legal standards and principles.

The Tribunal found that the complaint was not substantiated on several grounds. Firstly, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicants had provided sufficient evidence to show that Mr Hallinan’s conduct in approving the development application decision notice (DAN) that provided for the installation of a vapour barrier was unsatisfactory or constituted professional misconduct. The Tribunal found that the DAN and the accompanying drawings complied with the Australian Standard and that Mr Hallinan was entitled to rely on the certificates issued by another certifier (Mr Spagnol) in relation to certain aspects of the building works. Secondly, the Tribunal found that there was no requirement under the Building Code of Australia for the fill to be tested for compaction and that Mr Hallinan was not obliged to inspect the works himself. Thirdly, the Tribunal found that it was not necessary for Mr Hallinan to obtain approval from the Mackay Regional Council for a cut-to-fill operation in the circumstances of the case. Finally, the Tribunal found that Mr Hallinan had not made any false or misleading statements to the BSA and that he had responded to the applicants’ issues in a reasonable manner.

The Tribunal concluded that the BSA’s decision was correct and preferable and that the complaint was not substantiated. The Tribunal confirmed the BSA’s decision and dismissed the application. The Tribunal also made some observations about the role and responsibilities of building certifiers and the importance of complying with the relevant laws and standards.