Turcinovic v Queensland Building Services Authority - [2012] QCAT 14

CITATION:		Turcinovic v Queensland Building Services Authority [2012] QCAT 14
PARTIES:	Mr Hajrudin (Harry) Turcinovic
v
Queensland Building Services Authority

APPLICATION NUMBER:

GAR097-10

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:

17 May 2011

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Mr J Allen, Member

DELIVERED ON:

24 January 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

The application for review is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

REVIEW OF SCOPE OF WORK – whether scope of work reasonable and necessary –compliance with Australian Standards

Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991, ss 86, 87

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	Mr Turcinovic appeared for himself
RESPONDENT:	The Queensland Building Services Authority was represented by Ms Farthing, an in-house solicitor

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Turcinovic built a block of 6 townhouses at 50 Waratah Avenue, Carina which were completed in March 2008. There were complaints made to the authority in regard to the building work by the owners of several of the townhouses, some of which were attended to by Mr Turcinovic. The Authority’s inspector Mr Michael Pehrson determined that there were defects in respect of the termite treatment system which were made the subject of directions to rectify issued to Mr Turcinovic and which the Authority determined had not been complied with. The Authority then issued a scope of work for defective building work and Mr Turcinovic has made application for the Tribunal to review the scope of works.
The parties have agreed that the issue in dispute is whether the work identified in the attached scope of work (set out below) is required to rectify the defects listed at:

a)Item 1 of direction to rectify number 33167 (in respect of 1/50 Waratah Avenue, Carina)
The perimeter termite management system that has been installed at this unit does not comply with the BCA or Australian Standard 3660.1 2000 Termite management-New Building Work-Cat 1 defect;
b)Item 4 of direction to rectify to rectify number 33281 (in respect of 2/50 Waratah Avenue, Carina)
The perimeter termite management system that has been installed at this unit does not comply with the BCA or Australian Standard 3660.1 2000 Termite management-New Building Work-Cat 1 defect (item 7.1 of the BSA report);
c)Item 1 of direction to rectify number 33174 (in respect of 4/50 Waratah Avenue, Carina)
The perimeter termite management system that has been installed at this unit does not comply with the BCA or Australian Standard 3660.1 2000 Termite management-New Building Work-Cat 1 defect (items 13-17 of the BSA report) ;
d)Item 1 of direction to rectify number 33393 (in respect of 5/50 Waratah Avenue, Carina Heights)
The perimeter termite management system that has been installed at this unit does not comply with the BCA or Australian Standard 3660.1 2000 Termite management-New Building Work-Cat 1 defect, and
e)Item 1 of direction to rectify number 33245 (in respect of 6/50 Waratah Avenue, Carina)
The perimeter termite management system that has been installed at this unit does not comply with the BCA or Australian Standard 3660.1 2000 Termite management-New Building Work. Certificates from…

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 Turcinovic 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: [2012] QCAT 14
Decision Date: 24 January 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Turcinovic v Queensland Building Services Authority involved a dispute regarding the scope of work performed during a building project. The respondent, the Queensland Building Services Authority, had conducted an inspection of the building and issued a compliance certificate. The applicant, Turcinovic, contested the inspection and the certificate, arguing that the scope of work was unreasonable and unnecessary and did not comply with Australian Standards. The matter was brought before the court to determine the validity of the compliance certificate issued by the respondent.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the scope of work was reasonable and necessary and whether it complied with Australian Standards. The applicant argued that the inspection was flawed and that the compliance certificate was issued without proper consideration of the standards. The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the inspection and certificate were conducted in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations. The court was required to assess the evidence presented by both parties and determine whether the respondent had acted within its statutory powers in issuing the compliance certificate.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. The court found that the respondent had conducted the inspection in accordance with the relevant legislation and had issued the compliance certificate based on a reasonable and necessary scope of work. The court further found that the inspection and certificate complied with Australian Standards. The applicant's argument that the scope of work was unreasonable and unnecessary was dismissed by the court, which held that the respondent had acted within its statutory powers. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed, and the compliance certificate issued by the respondent was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for review is dismissed.

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.