Queensland Building and Construction Commission v Marshall

The Queensland Building and Construction Commission sought to recover payments made under the insurance scheme in the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) from various defendants. The Commission alleged that one of the defendants was the private certifier in respect of the work, and the other defendants were directors of that entity at relevant times. The defendants argued that section 71 of the Act did not apply and sought summary judgment or that the statement of claim be struck out.

The central issue before the court was whether the second defendant could be considered a "person through whose fault the claim arose" for the purposes of section 71(1) of the Act. The court examined the language of the statute, noting that the term "any other person" was not limited to a natural person. The court also considered the purpose of the insurance scheme and the role of the certifier in ensuring compliance with building standards. The court held that the second defendant could indeed be considered a person through whose fault the claim arose, as the certifier had a responsibility to ensure compliance with building standards, and their failure to do so could result in claims being made under the insurance scheme.

Consequently, the court dismissed the defendants' application for summary judgment or to have the statement of claim struck out. The court found that the second defendant could be held liable for the Commission's payments under section 71(1) of the Act. As part of the orders, the court mandated that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of the application. This decision underscores the importance of the certifier's role in the construction industry and the potential liability for failures in ensuring compliance with building standards.