McKee v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2025] QCAT 438

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

McKee v Queensland Building and Construction Commission & Anor [2025] QCAT 438

PARTIES:

IAN MCKEE

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISION

(FIRST RESPONDENT)

REEBUILD PTY LTD

(second respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR165-24

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

31 October 2025

HEARING DATE:

12 September 2025

HEARD AT:

On the papers

DECISION OF:

Member Wilson

ORDERS:

1. The first respondent’s decision to deny the applicant’s claim in respect of the seven outstanding non-structural defects is set aside.

2. The matter is returned to the first respondent to deal with the applicant’s claim regarding those defects on the basis that the claim was made within time.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – STATUTORY INSURANCE SCHEME FOR CLAIMS FOR DEFECTIVE OR INCOMPLETE BUILDING WORK – where Queensland Building and Construction Commission refused to allow a claim for assistance under the Queensland Home Warranty Insurance Scheme – correct interpretation of time frame to make application for assistance

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld), schedule 6 s 16, s 59

Tyas v Queensland Building and Construction Commission & Anor [2025] QCAT 278 considered

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

The applicant is the owner of a residential property at Kingsley Parade, Yeronga in the State of Queensland (“property”). On 31 December 2020 the applicant and the second respondent entered into a contract for renovation and extension work associated with the partial demolition and raising of the house at the property (“contract”). The value of the contract when signed was $202,058. The total value of the contract at completion of the work, including variations, was $335,543. As at December 2021, a balance of $6,112 remained unpaid by the applicant in relation to the final invoice issued by the second respondent.
On 12 April 2023 the applicant lodged a residential and commercial construction work complaint with the first respondent regarding work undertaken at the property, pursuant to the statutory Home Warranty Insurance Scheme (“Scheme”) established under the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act1991 (Qld) (“Act”), the terms of which are set out in Schedule 6 to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation2018 (Qld) (“Regulation”). The complaint, when considered by the first respondent, referred to 24 individual work items.[1]
[1]The complaint filed included 21 complaint items. A further three complaint items were added to the complaint on 7 May 2023.
On 20 November 2023 the first respondent decided not to give a direction to rectify to the second respondent regarding the items in the complaint made by the applicant. That decision was notified to the applicant on 1 December 2023.
On 6 December 2023 the applicant requested the first respondent undertake an internal review of the decision to disallow the applicant’s claim.
On 7 February 2020 the first respondent notified the…

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 McKee v Queensland Building and Construction Commission 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: [2025] QCAT 438
Decision Date: 31 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

McKee and Queensland Building and Construction Commission was a case heard in the Queensland Land Court. The applicant, Mr McKee, sought assistance from the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) under the Queensland Home Warranty Insurance Scheme. The QBCC had denied the applicant's claim for assistance in rectifying seven non-structural defects in a residential property. The dispute centred on the interpretation of the time frame within which such claims could be made under the scheme.

The central legal issue before the court was the correct interpretation of the statutory time frame within which an application for assistance under the Queensland Home Warranty Insurance Scheme must be made. The applicant argued that his claims were made within the prescribed period, while the QBCC contended that the claims were time-barred. The court had to consider the statutory provisions, particularly the relevant sections of the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) and the applicable regulations, as well as the circumstances of the case to determine whether the applicant's claims were lodged within the required time frame.

In determining the matter, the court closely examined the statutory provisions and the relevant regulations. It considered the language of the legislation and the context in which it was enacted. The court found that the statutory time frame was not strictly adhered to by the QBCC in assessing the applicant's claims. The court held that the applicant's claims were indeed made within the permissible period, and thus the QBCC's decision to deny the claims was incorrect. Consequently, the court set aside the QBCC's decision and directed that the matter be returned to the QBCC to reconsider the applicant's claim on the merits, given that it was made within time.

In its orders, the court set aside the QBCC's decision to deny the applicant's claim in respect of the seven outstanding non-structural defects. The court mandated that the matter be returned to the QBCC to deal with the applicant's claim regarding those defects, recognising that the claim was made within the prescribed time frame.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The first respondent’s decision to deny the applicant’s claim in respect of the seven outstanding non-structural defects is set aside.

2. The matter is returned to the first respondent to deal with the applicant’s claim regarding those defects on the basis that the claim was made within time.

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.