Manwin v Queensland Building Services Authority

[2007] QDC 298

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Manwin v Queensland Building Services Authority [2007] QDC 298

PARTIES:

ATANAS MANWIN

Appellant

AND

QUEENSLAND BUILDING SERVICES AUTHORITY

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

BD1519/07

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

9 November 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 October 2007

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Leave to appeal refused with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

BUILDING CONTROL AND TOWN PLANNING – Registration of Builders – disciplinary proceedings – failure to rectify – quantification of loss – need for timely review of scope of rectification work

Queensland Building Service Authority Act 1991 s 86(2)(b),(c), s 109A(1).

Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Act 2003 s 107(3).

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared in person

S. Budden (solicitor) for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant was not represented

The respondent by its Legal Services Division

1. This is an application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal dated 3 May 2007.  The respondent had brought disciplinary proceedings against the appellant in the tribunal under the Queensland Building Service Authority Act 1991 (“the 1991 Act”) and the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”), on the ground that the appellant had failed to comply with a direction to rectify given under the 1991 Act by the Authority. The tribunal held that proper grounds existed for taking disciplinary action against the appellant, imposed a penalty of $600 on the appellant, and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent compensation in the sum of $6,750 and costs in the amount of $1,000. Any appeal to this court is by leave only, and confined to a question of jurisdiction or error of law: the 2003 Act s 100.

Background

1. The appellant, who is a licensed builder,[1] agreed to do some building work for a homeowner in Bardon, involving changing an old house which had been in the past divided into two flats so that it was just one house again.  Evidently disputes arose between the parties, and the owner complained to the respondent.[2]  The appellant did some further work, but on 20 June 2003 the respondent issued a direction to rectify, initially to the appellant’s company.  However, on 20 November 2003 a new direction to rectify was sent to the appellant allowing 40 days within which the work was to be completed.  After this direction was sent, there was a site meeting at the premises which the tribunal found occurred on 17 December 2003, after which the appellant was allowed an extension until the end of the first week of February to comply with the direction to rectify.  There was, however, apparently no modification to the content of the direction to rectify, and the appellant did not seek to review the decision to issue the direction to rectify.

   [1]Exhibit 2.

   [2]The facts are taken largely from the reasons of the Tribunal, and the affidavit of Moulton which was Exhibit 1 in the Tribunal.

1. The direction to rectify required attention to the following six matters:

“1.      Surface finish to…