DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Pappas –v- Queensland Building Services Authority [2002] QDC 290
PARTIES:
George PAPPAS
(appellant)
V
Queensland Building Services Authority
(respondent)FILE NO/S:
27 of 2002
DIVISION:
District Court
PROCEEDING:
Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT
Queensland Building Tribunal
DELIVERED ON:
23 October 2002
DELIVERED AT:
Townsville
HEARING DATE:
11 October 2002
JUDGE:
CF Wall QC
ORDERS:
Appeal allowed1.
Orders 1, 2 and 5 of the Tribunal set aside and following orders substituted in lieu:2.
1 and 2. Directions 1 and 2 are annulled
5. The respondent is to pay 80% of the applicant’s costs. Those costs in accordance with Scale B of the Magistrates Court.
3. Respondent to pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, assessed on the standard basis unless agreed.
CATCHWORDS:
INFERIOR TRIBUNALS – BUILDING TRIBUNAL – APPEAL TO DISTRICT COURT
BUILDING AND ENGINEERING CONTRACTS - PERFORMANCE OF WORK
App from decision of Building Tribunal – Wh work defective – Discretion to not order rectification – Unfairness – Duty of Tribunal to give reasons
Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 ss 72(1), (2), (14)
R –v- Judge Miller and the Builders’ Registration Board of Queensland (1987) 2 Qd R 446 – Con.
Greening –v- Queensland Building Services Authority and Beauchamp (2001) QBT 76, 22 May 2001 – App
COUNSEL:
R. Quirk for the appellant
C. Eyelander for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Alex Nelson and Associates for the appellant
Queensland Building Services Authority for the respondent
DISTRICT COURT
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
JUDGE C F WALL QC
No D140 of 2002
| GEORGE PAPPAS | Appellant |
| and | |
| QUEENSLAND BUILDING SERVICES AUTHORITY | Respondent |
TOWNSVILLE
..DATE 23/10/2002
JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal from a decision of the Queensland Building Tribunal given on the 21st of March 2002.
On the 20th of September 2001 the respondent directed the appellant to rectify certain interior paintwork which he had carried out at a house situated at 38 Bristol Street, Gulliver, Townsville, owned by Wayne and June Lean.
The appellant applied to the Queensland Building Tribunal for a review of the decision of the Queensland Building Services Authority to direct him to rectify part of the work. The decision of the Authority was in the following terms:
1.Rectify the defective paint film to the toilet ceiling.
2.Rectify the defective paint film to the ceiling of bedroom 2.
3.Rectify the defective finish to the surface of the southern wall in the toilet.
4.Rectify the defective finish to the surface of the southern wall in bedroom 3.
The appellant asked the Tribunal to annul the directions. The Tribunal's decision was as follows:
1.Directions 1 and 2 were confirmed "conditionally upon the homeowner first installing ceiling ventilation which, in the opinion of the Queensland Building Services Authority inspector, is no less effective than 'whirlybird' ventilation." The ventilation was to be installed within 60 days of the decision of the Tribunal, failing which Directions 1 and 2 were annulled. The appellant was to carry out the rectification work within 28 days of the installation of ventilation…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Pappas v Queensland Building Services Authority 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2002] QDC 290
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Building Tribunal had correctly exercised its jurisdiction in making the orders and, if so, whether the orders were just and equitable. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the Building Tribunal had the power to annul certain directions and to what extent it could award costs against the respondent. The court was also required to assess whether the orders made by the Tribunal were reasonable and in line with the evidence presented.
The court found that the Building Tribunal had overstepped its jurisdiction by annulling certain directions and making orders that were not supported by the evidence. The court held that the Tribunal did not have the authority to annul the directions as it had no power to alter or set aside directions given by another tribunal. Furthermore, the court determined that the award of costs to the respondent was not justified, as the respondent's conduct did not warrant such an order. The court substituted alternative orders that annulled the directions and awarded costs to the appellant, reflecting the actual costs incurred. The court also addressed the appropriate basis for assessing costs, ruling that the costs should be assessed on the standard basis unless otherwise agreed.
The court allowed the appeal and set aside certain orders of the Tribunal, substituting alternative orders in their place. The court annulled the directions issued by the Tribunal and awarded the appellant 80% of their costs, to be assessed according to Scale B of the Magistrates Court. Additionally, the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal, assessed on the standard basis unless otherwise agreed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed1.
Orders 1, 2 and 5 of the Tribunal set aside and following orders substituted in lieu:2.
1 and 2. Directions 1 and 2 are annulled
5. The respondent is to pay 80% of the applicant’s costs. Those costs in accordance with Scale B of the Magistrates Court.
3. Respondent to pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, assessed on the standard basis unless agreed.
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.