Murphy v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

In the case of Murphy v Queensland Building and Construction Commission, the appellant, Mr Murphy, sought to appeal the Tribunal's decisions in two related proceedings concerning the rectification of defective building work. Mr Murphy had engaged Woodsy's Contracting Services, operated by Jie Wood, for restumping work at his residence. Following completion, Mr Murphy complained to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) about the defects, naming Ross Wood as the contractor. The QBCC initially issued a direction to rectify to Ross Wood, but later withdrew this direction upon discovering that Jie Wood was the actual contractor and not licensed. A new direction was issued to Jie Wood, who arranged for Ross Wood, a licensed contractor, to perform the rectification. Mr Murphy applied to review both the initial direction to rectify and the subsequent direction to rectify.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the QBCC's decision to withdraw the initial direction to rectify and issue a new one constituted a decision not to give a direction to rectify, and whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to review the QBCC's decision that the rectification work had been completed. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the QBCC was functus officio after issuing the initial direction to rectify and if the Tribunal erred by considering irrelevant matters in its decision-making process.

The court found that the QBCC's power to issue or withdraw a direction to rectify was not exhausted by its initial exercise, as there was no express statutory provision preventing such action. The court relied on the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) to support this conclusion, highlighting that the power to give or withhold a direction to rectify is exercisable "from time to time as occasion requires." The court also noted that the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act) allows the tribunal to invite the decision maker to reconsider a decision, aligning with the concept of repealing a decision under the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld). The court concluded that the Tribunal had erred by considering the second direction to rectify as a reviewable decision and by not focusing on the initial decision not to give a direction to rectify against Ross Wood.

The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's decisions and remitting the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with the court's reasons.