Pavlovic v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2020] QCAT 128

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Pavlovic v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2020] QCAT 128

PARTIES:

ZORAN PAVLOVIC

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR076-20

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

24 April 2020

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Cranwell

ORDERS:

1.   The application to extend time filed on 18 March 2020 is dismissed.

2.   The application to review a decision filed on
25 February 2020 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – application to extend time for leave to appeal

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – TIME, EXTENSION AND ABRIDGMENT – where the applicant filed an application to review a decision out of time – where the applicant filed an application for an extension of time – whether application for an extension of time should be granted

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 39A

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 33, s 61

Cardillo v Queensland Building Services Authority [2011] QCAT 574
Coppens v Water Wise Design Pty Ltd [2014] QCATA 309

Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman & Anor [2011] QCAT 229

Jensen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2017] QCAT 232

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Holding Redlich Lawyers

APPEARANCES:

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 6 November 2019, the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) decided to decline Mr Pavlovic’s claim under the statutory insurance scheme.
The letter advising Mr Pavlovic of this decision contained the following statement:
You have the right to have this decision externally reviewed in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). An external review application must be lodged with QCAT within 28 days of receiving this decision.
I note that s 33 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) provides that an application for the review of a reviewable decision must be made within 28 days of, relevantly, the day the applicant is notified of the decision.
The effect of s 39A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) is that the decision letter is taken to have been received ‘at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post, unless the contrary is proved’. In the case of a regular letter, that is three to four business days, which in this case was by 12 November 2019. In any event, Mr Pavlovic indicated on the application to review a decision filed with the Tribunal that the decision was received ‘before Christmas’.
The application for review was therefore required to be made by

10 December 2019.
On 25 February 2020, Mr Pavlovic filed an application to review the decision with the Tribunal. The application was filed out of time, so Mr Pavlovic subsequently filed an application for an extension of…

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 Pavlovic 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: [2020] QCAT 128
Decision Date: 24 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Pavlovic v Queensland Building and Construction Commission, the applicant sought an extension of time to file an application for review of a decision made by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission. The matter was heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The primary issue before the tribunal was whether the applicant's application for an extension of time should be granted, given that the initial application for review was filed out of time.

The tribunal considered several factors in determining whether to grant the extension. These factors included the possibility of some merit to the applicant's case, the absence of prejudice to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission, and the overarching interests of justice. The tribunal noted that finality in litigation is highly desirable, and that the tribunal's obligation to deal with matters fairly, economically, and quickly would not be achieved by allowing the applicant to file the application after a considerable delay. The tribunal also highlighted the importance of the applicant providing an acceptable explanation for the delay in filing the application.

After considering these factors, the tribunal concluded that the interests of justice and the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay outweighed the other considerations. The tribunal found that the applicant had made no attempt to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay, and therefore, the application for an extension of time was refused. Consequently, the application to review a decision was also dismissed.

The tribunal's orders were that the application to extend time filed on 18 March 2020 was dismissed, and the application to review a decision filed on 25 February 2020 was also dismissed. This decision underscores the importance of timeliness in legal proceedings and the need for applicants to provide acceptable explanations for any delays in filing applications.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application to extend time filed on 18 March 2020 is dismissed.

2. The application to review a decision filed on

25 February 2020 is dismissed.

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

The interests of justice do not favour an extension. As Thomas J noted in Coppens,[4] finality in litigation is highly desirable. The Tribunal’s obligation under s 3(b) of the QCAT Act to deal with matters, fairly, economically and quickly would not be achieved by allowing Mr Pavlovic to file this application after a considerable delay.[4][2014] QCATA 309, 4 [14].Conclusion The absence of prejudice to the QBCC, and the possibility of some merit to Mr Pavlovic’s case, point in favour of extending the time for Mr Pavlovic to apply for review of the exclusion decision. However, I am of the view that these factors are outweighed by the interests of justice and the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay. As Member Howe observed in Cardillo v Queensland Building Services Authority, ‘it has … been said that it is a precondition to the exercise of discretion in the applicant's favour that the applicant for extension show an acceptable explanation of the delay’.[5] Mr Pavlovic has made no attempt to do this.[5][2011] QCAT 574, 7 [33]. The application for an extension of time is refused. The application to review a decision is therefore dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Pavlovic v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2020] QCAT 128
PARTIES:	ZORAN PAVLOVIC (applicant)
v
QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	GAR076-20
MATTER TYPE:	General administrative review matters
DELIVERED ON:	24 April 2020
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Cranwell
ORDERS:	1. The application to extend time filed on 18 March 2020 is dismissed. 2. The application to review a decision filed on 25 February 2020 is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – application to extend time for leave to appeal PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – TIME, EXTENSION AND ABRIDGMENT – where the applicant filed an application to review a decision out of time – where the applicant filed an application for an extension of time – whether application for an extension of time should be granted Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 39A Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 33, s 61 Cardillo v Queensland Building Services Authority [2011] QCAT 574 Coppens v Water Wise Design Pty Ltd [2014] QCATA 309 Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman & Anor [2011] QCAT 229 Jensen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2017] QCAT 232
REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondent:	Holding Redlich Lawyers
APPEARANCES:	This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).