McCrystal v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

In the matter of McCrystal v Queensland Building and Construction Commission, the applicant, Mr. McCrystal, sought an extension of time to file an application for review against the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC). The dispute arose from the QBCC's decision not to take disciplinary action against a certifier, a decision that Mr. McCrystal believed was flawed. The court had to determine whether the application for an extension of time to file a review application should be granted and if Mr. McCrystal had standing to bring the review application in the first place.

The court considered whether the enabling Act, the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), allowed for an extension of time under section 61 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 (Qld). It was also necessary to determine if Mr. McCrystal qualified as a "person affected" by the QBCC's decision, as defined by section 87 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld). This was crucial because the applicant's ownership of adjacent properties to those relevant to the proceedings in GAR268-17 and GAR171-17 played a part in assessing his standing. The court examined if Mr. McCrystal's proximity to the properties in question was sufficient to grant him standing to apply for review.

The court ruled that the application for an extension of time was refused, and the application for review dated 14 September 2017 was dismissed. It held that the enabling Act did not provide for an extension of time under the relevant section, and therefore, the application for an extension was not permissible. Additionally, the court found that Mr. McCrystal did not have standing to bring the review application as he was not a "person affected" by the QBCC's decision. The court concluded that his ownership of properties adjacent to, but not directly involved in, the proceedings did not entitle him to challenge the QBCC's decision. The court also dismissed the application to consolidate the proceedings and to remove QBCC as a party but allowed the application to strike out the proceedings.

The final orders were that the application for an extension of time was refused, the application for review was dismissed, the application to consolidate the proceedings was refused, the application to dismiss a party was refused, and the application to strike out the proceedings was allowed.