| CITATION: | Robuild Pty Ltd v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCAT 197 |
| PARTIES: | Robuild Pty Ltd (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Queensland Building Services Authority (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | GAR379-12 |
| MATTER TYPE: | General Administrative Review Matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Michael Howe, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 3 May 2013 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. Respondent’s application to dismiss the review application refused. |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Robuild Pty Ltd holds an unconditional QBSA builder’s licence. The company did residential building work for a homeowner quite a few years ago and the homeowner made recent complaint about some of the work. The Queensland Building Services Authority investigated and directed Robuild perform some rectification work.
Mr Stainton, Robuild's nominee, requested an extension of time to complete the work and that was granted with the work to be done by 10 October 2012. Despite the extension, it wasn’t.
The Authority issued an infringement notice on 15 October 2012. The notice was addressed to Robuild at Unit 4a, 5 – 9 Turnbull Street, Garbutt, QLD 4814.
On 25 October 2012 Robuild filed an application for a domestic building dispute in QCAT’s Townsville registry. The application should have been one for review of the Authority's decision to direct Robuild to rectify work. Robuild then filed a review application in the Brisbane registry on 12 November 2012.
The Authority has now applied to dismiss Robuild’s the review application. It says QCAT does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter. That application by the Authority is now before me for decision.
The QBSA Act
Section 86(2)(b) of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 provides that the Tribunal must not review a decision of the Authority to direct rectification of tribunal work (building work) if 28 days have elapsed from the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Robuild Pty Ltd 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
- [2013] QCAT 197
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court meticulously examined the statutory language and the context in which these provisions were applied. It considered whether the address to which the infringement notice was posted could be considered a principal office as defined under the statutes. The court referred to precedent, particularly the reasoning in Polstar Pty Ltd v Agnew, where the concept of an "office" was elaborated upon, emphasizing that a principal office must be identifiable by prominent display and accessible to the public. In this case, the court found no evidence to support that the address in question met these criteria, leading to the conclusion that the service of the infringement notice was not effective under the relevant statutory provisions.
Consequently, the court held that the Queensland Building Services Authority's application to dismiss the review application must fail, as the service of the infringement notice did not comply with statutory requirements. The court's decision was grounded in the lack of evidence demonstrating that the premises in question were a principal office as defined by the statutes. This outcome ensures that the Tribunal retains its review jurisdiction over the matter.
ORDERS:
1. The application by the Respondent to dismiss the review application is refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Respondent’s application to dismiss the review application refused.
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
In Polstar Pty Ltd v Agnew,[5] Barrett J considered the matter of service at a principal office in the context of service pursuant to s 28A of the Commonwealth Acts Interpretation Act. He said: 17 The Corporations Act provision contemplates posting to “the company’s registered office”. The Acts Interpretation Act provision also refers to “a registered office”, as well as “the head office” and “a principal office”. The common theme is “office”. Provisions of the Corporations Act imposing requirements with respect to a company’s “registered office” elucidate the meaning of “office” in the expression “registered office”. Those provisions make it clear that such an office may only be at a location capable of being “open to the public”: see s.145(1). It must also be a location at which it is possible to display prominently the company’s name (s.144(1)) and the words “Registered Office” (s.144(2)). Furthermore, it is contemplated that there will be “premises at the address of” the registered office (see s.143(1)) and that “premises” will be used “as the address of the company’s registered office” (s.143(2)(a)).[5] [2007] NSWSC 114.18 In short, the Corporations Act’s concept of “office”, in the references to “registered office”, is one centred on a physical location in the nature of premises (that is, a building or a room in or section of a building) to which persons may go and which can be identified by prominent display as a company’s registered office. I am of the opinion that the Acts Interpretation Act reflects a similar concept of “office” in its references to “registered office”, “head office” and “principal office”. That view was supported by Ward J in Anton Fabrications (NSW) Pty Ltd - Bentley Smythe Pty Ltd v Anton Fabrications (NSW) Pty Ltd.[6] [6] [2011] NSWSC 186. I have no information as to whether or not Unit 4a, 5 – 9 Turnbull Street, Garbutt, QLD 4814 is a place identified by prominent display as the principal office of Robuild, nor whether it is open to the public. It is described by Mrs Stainton simply as Robuild’s “business premises” without saying more. Mr Stainton also very generally describes those premises as "business premises" without elaboration. I have similarly no information about the head office of Robuild. I must therefore conclude that the Authority is also unable to rely on service pursuant to s39 of the Acts Interpretation Act when it posted the infringement notice to Unit 4a, 5 – 9 Turnbull Street, Garbutt, QLD 4814. Accordingly I find there has not been effective service of an infringement notice pursuant to s 86(2)(b)(ii) of the QBSA Act and the review jurisdiction of the Tribunal has not been ousted pursuant to that provision. As such the Authority’s application must fail.