Omae v Queensland Building Services Authority

[2012] QCAT 80

CITATION: Omae v Queensland Building Services Authority [2012] QCAT 80

PARTIES:	Ms Makiko Omae
v
Queensland Building Services Authority

APPLICATION NUMBER: GAR356-11

MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Kate Buxton, Member

DELIVERED ON: 24 February 2012

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.  The application is dismissed.

2.  Submissions on costs be filed in QCAT and served on the other party by 1 March 2012.

3.  The issue of costs will be determined on the papers after 1 March 2012.

CATCHWORDS: Building dispute – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to review decision – proper characterisation of claim not within review jurisdiction – consideration of application to extend time

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Ms Makiko Omae is a homeowner who has, by application filed 4 November 2011, sought review of a decision of the Queensland Building Services Authority (the “BSA”) made 29 June 2011 (the “decision”).

1. The decision was the approval of the sum of $19,561 as an insurance payment to enable rectification works to be carried out.  That approval allowed Ms Omae to engage the contractor of her choice for the works, and was calculated on the basis of the most economical of three quotes for the scheduled rectification works, the most economical quote being Mr Foote.

1. The application and attached correspondence discloses that Ms Omae seeks the review because, in her view:

(a)   The most economical quotation did not provide separate estimates for each item;

(b)   The most economical quote was from a builder of “questionable reputation”.

1. The relief sought in the application includes:

(a)   A formal apology from the BSA; and

(b)   A new accurate BSA estimate for the works; or

(c)    Approval to use an alternative builder from the panel.

1. Ms Omae has sought an extension of time to review the decision as more than 28 days has elapsed prior to the filing of the application for review.  The BSA opposed the extension of time and argued, in addition, that the review application is not within QCAT’s jurisdiction and should therefore be dismissed.

1. This Tribunal is now required to consider the parties’ written submissions and determine:

(a)   The issue of whether the application to review is within QCAT’s jurisdiction; and

(b)   If so, whether an extension of time should be granted to permit the determination of the application.

Jurisdiction

1. The BSA have submitted[1] that QCAT does not have power to review the decision because the relief sought doesn’t relate to any decision reviewable by QCAT. Section 86 of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (Qld) (the “QBSA Act”) sets out the scope of QCAT’s review jurisdiction in respect of the QBSA’s decisions. Relevantly, that section provides:

86 Reviewable decisions

(1)  The tribunal may review the following decisions of the authority—

…

(g)a decision about the scope of works…