Taouk v Queensland Building Services Authority - [2013] QCAT 96

CITATION:

Taouk v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCAT 96

PARTIES:	Mr John Taouk (Applicant)
V
Queensland Building Services Authority (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

GAR330-11

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Kate Buxton, Member

DELIVERED ON:

22 February 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The application to join Mr Andrew George Hanna, Mr John Peter Hanna, Mr Peter John Hanna and Mr Fadi Tarabay as parties to review application GAR330-11 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

Queensland Building Services Authority Act – application for review – application to join former directors of the now deregistered property owning company – whether parties should be joined under section 42 of the QCAT Act.

Coral Homes Qld Pty Ltd v Queensland Building Services Authority [2011] QCAT 715
Smith v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QCAT 448

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s42(1)

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 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

In this review application to QCAT filed on 14 October 2011 Mr Taouk seeks review of the decision of the Queensland Building Services Authority to issue a direction to rectify works.
Mr Taouk commenced works for the construction of 16 residential apartments in Holland Park in about March 2006 and was engaged by APJ Pty Ltd and Fadi Tarabay, the developers of the project, to undertake that work. Mr Taouk was contracted as the licensee on the project, engaged to undertake construction management and to oversee the project. Mr Taouk asserts in his application that, on or about February 2007, he terminated the contract as construction manager and this was confirmed in written correspondence to the developers on 5 March 2007.
Mr Taouk asserts that he is not able to provide any further information about how the building works were complete and how final certification of the project was achieved. He says that, what arises from these facts is that the building works listed to be rectified in the direction to rectify issued by the Authority were not completed by him or were not completed whilst Mr Taouk was engaged as construction manager. The company APJ Pty Ltd has since deregistered.[1] The former directors of that company were Mr A Hanna, Mr J Hanna and Mr P Hanna. By application filed in these proceedings on 20 December 2012, the Authority seeks that each of these individuals, together with Mr Tarabay, be joined as parties to the proceeding.
[1] On 4 March 2008
The QCAT Act[2] provides a wide discretion for the joinder of parties to a proceeding. A party may be joined if he or she should be bound by, or have the benefit of, the Tribunal’s decision; if that person’s interests may be affected or if it otherwise desirable that the person be joined. Mr A Hanna, Mr J Hanna and Mr P Hanna have, jointly, filed submissions opposing…

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 Taouk 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

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: [2013] QCAT 96
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Taouk v Queensland Building Services Authority, the applicant, Mr John Taouk, sought a review of a decision made by the Queensland Building Services Authority (Authority) to issue a direction to rectify works. The dispute centred around Mr Taouk's role as a construction manager for a residential apartment project in Holland Park, and whether he was responsible for the completion of the building works and the final certification of the project. The Authority issued a direction to rectify works against Mr Taouk, and subsequently sought to join four additional parties to the review proceedings, including former directors of the now-deregistered property owning company APJ Pty Ltd, and Mr Fadi Tarabay.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proposed parties should be joined under section 42 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act). The court considered the potential for unnecessary delay and cost, as well as the complexity of the issues, in deciding whether to exercise its discretion to join additional parties. The court found that the proposed joinder of the additional parties would not advance the interests of justice, as it would not result in a more efficient or effective resolution of the issues in the case.

The court held that the Authority had not established that APJ carried out the building work, nor had it demonstrated that the past directors of APJ were responsible for the acts of the company. Additionally, the court found that the potential for relitigation of the same issue between Mr Taouk, the Authority, and the proposed parties was too remote to warrant the joinder of additional parties. As such, the application to join Mr Andrew George Hanna, Mr John Peter Hanna, Mr Peter John Hanna and Mr Fadi Tarabay as parties to the review application was dismissed.

In summary, the court held that the application to join additional parties to the review proceedings was not desirable, and dismissed the application accordingly. This decision ensures that the scope and complexity of the current review proceeding remain focused on the issues between Mr Taouk and the Authority, without unnecessary delay or cost.

Orders