DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
Introduction
The plaintiff, Queensland Building Services Authority (“QBSA”), seeks summary judgment pursuant to r 292 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 for the whole of the plaintiff’s claim. The claim of $153,917.95 is alleged to be owed by the defendant (“Watkins”) pursuant to s 71 of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (“QBSA Act”).
Primary matter in dispute
Although the defendant argues that there are many facts in dispute and that that of itself give rise to triable issues in the regulatory framework determined by Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Salcedo,[1] the main argument – and one which if resolved in favour of the defendant means that summary judgment cannot be obtained at this time – is that the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“QCAT”) has exclusive jurisdiction to determine an issue which is fundamental to the plaintiff’s right of action. If this were to be so, then it is not appropriate to give summary judgment at this time.
[1] [2005] 2 Qd R 232.
The application to QCAT was filed in its registry under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Queensland Building Services Authority v Watkins 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
- [2013] QDC 198
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The tribunal had to determine if the application was made within the statutory time limits set out in the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 and whether the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 provided an exception to these limits. Additionally, the tribunal considered if the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 allowed for a broader interpretation of time limits in the context of this case. The tribunal examined relevant case law, including Cornpig Pty Ltd v Queensland Building Services Authority and Smith v Queensland Building Services Authority, to assist in its interpretation of the statutes.
The tribunal concluded that the application was not made within the statutory time limits as required by the Limitation of Actions Act 1974. However, it also found that the tribunal did have jurisdiction to hear the matter under section 61 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, which provides an exception to the general time limits. The tribunal decided to adjourn the application to allow for further submissions and to reserve its decision on costs. Both parties were granted liberty to apply for relisting of the application before the tribunal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Adjourn the application to a date to be fixed.
2. Both parties have liberty to apply for relisting of the application before me.
3. Costs are reserved.
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.