Van Houdt v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

[2019] QCAT 103

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Van Houdt v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2019] QCAT 103

PARTIES:

LUKE VAN HOUDT
(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR201-18

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

10 April 2019

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Cranwell

ORDERS:

The application to review a decision filed on 19 June 2018 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where direction to rectify issued to deregistered company – where former director of company seeks review – whether applicant has standing

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 72AA, s 73, s 87

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

S Monaghan

APPEARANCES:

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 27 February 2019, I directed the parties to file submissions as to whether Mr van Houdt has standing to bring the proceeding.

2. The proceeding concerns a direction to rectify issued by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (‘the QBCC’) to Assured Builders Pty Ltd on 24 May 2018.  An application to review this decision was lodged by Mr van Houdt.

3. The QBCC has brought to my attention that Assured Builders Pty Ltd was deregistered by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission on

   
   

   4 December 2016.  Mr van Houdt ceased to be a director of Assured Builders Pty Ltd on the same date.

4. Section 87 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (‘the QBCC Act’) provides:

   A person affected by a reviewable decision of the commission may apply, as provided under the QCAT Act, to the tribunal for review of the decision.

5. The consequences of non-compliance with a direction to rectify are set out in s 72AA of s 73 of the QBCC Act.

6. Section 72AA(1) of the QBCC Act provides:

   A person must not, without reasonable excuse, delay rectifying building work that is defective or incomplete, or remedying consequential damage, as required by a direction given to the person under section 72(2).

7. Section 73 of the QBCC Act provides:

   A person must not fail to rectify building work that is defective or incomplete, or to remedy consequential damage, as required by a direction to rectify or remedy given to the person, subject to any extension of time granted under section 72B.

8. Having regard to these provisions, the QBCC have submitted that Mr van Houdt is under no personal obligation to comply with the direction to rectify issued to Assured Builders Pty Ltd. The QBCC have also acknowledged that the decision to issue a direction to rectify to a deregistered entity was made in error.

9. In these circumstances, I am not satisfied that Mr van Houdt is a person affected by the direction to rectify issued to Assured Builders Pty Ltd.  The application to review a decision is therefore dismissed.