Rumbelow v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

[2016] QCAT 378

CITATION:

Rumbelow v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2016] QCAT 378

PARTIES:

Troy Rumbelow
(Applicant)

v

Queensland Building and Construction Commission

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR139-16

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Gardiner

DELIVERED ON:

14 October 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.    The application for a stay filed 30 August 2016 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – Stay – Where application to review decision to declare a person an excluded individual – Where stay application filed – Whether stay necessary under legislation

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 30 August 2016 Troy Rumbelow filed an application to review a decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission determining him as an excluded individual.

2. Mr Rumbelow also filed an application to stay the decision pending the hearing of the review.  He made comprehensive submissions in support of this application. 

3. On 7 September 2016 the Commission provided a letter to the Tribunal submitting as follows:

   i.The stay is opposed as being of no utility;

   ii.As Mr Rumbelow’s review application was made within the reply time in accordance with s.56AH of the Queensland Building and Commission Act 1991 (Qld), the reply period is taken to have stopped running until the review is finished;

   iii.Consequently, s56(AF)(3)(a) does not require the Commission to cancel Mr Rumbelow’s licence;

   iv.The Commission will not cancel Mr Rumbelow’s licence until the decision is confirmed by this tribunal or the review is otherwise finished.

4. On 19 September 2016, by way of further submissions in reply, Mr Rumbelow adopts the points in the Commission’s response - that under the legislation, the Commission will not cancel Mr Rumbelow’s licence until the decision is confirmed by this tribunal or the review is otherwise finished.

5. However, Mr Rumbelow opposes the submission of the Commission that the stay application should be withdrawn and requests that this tribunal make the stay order anyway.

6. I do not accept that this is a necessary step in this application.  The legislation – as agreed by the parties, resolves this application in favour of Mr Rumbelow and the Commission has made its position clear.

7. I see no utility to this application and I will dismiss it.