Legal Research
Cases
Watkins v Queensland Building Services Authority

Watkins v Queensland Building Services Authority

Link copied

Case Copied 3 October 2013 12 min read

Contents

On this page

CITATION:

Watkins v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCAT 535

PARTIES:	Mr Russell Ian Watkins (Applicant)
v
Queensland Building Services Authority (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

GAR265-13

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Dr J R Forbes, Member

DELIVERED ON:

3 October 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The application for extension of time is dismissed.

2. The application for review is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW MATTERS – Queensland Building Services Authority – application to review decision – decision to approve insurance claim – application to extend time for review – application to dismiss for want of jurisdiction – whether section 61 discretion available – whether discretion to extend time excluded by enabling Act – whether section 86(2) of enabling Act substantive or merely procedural

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 6, 7, 32, 61, 86
Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (Qld) ss 70, 71, 71A, Part 5
Retail Shop Leases Act 1994 (Qld) s 103
Land Court Act 2000 (Qld) s 65
Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) s 35

Queensland Building Services Authority v Robuild Pty Ltd [2013] QCATA 238

Aussie Vic Plant Hire Pty Ltd v Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd (2008) 232 CLR 314
Queensland Building Services Authority v Watkins [2013] QDC 198
Ken Harrison Homes v Queensland Building Services Authority [2007] QCCTB 61
Sendall v Howe and Anor [2012] QCATA 41
Cameron v Cole (1944) 68 CLR 571
Munday v Queensland Building Services Authority [2012] QCAT 15
Cornpig Pty Ltd v Queensland Building Services Authority [2011] QCAT 255
Customizer Kitchens QLD v Queensland Building Services Authority [2011] QCAT 13
Smith v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QCAT 448
Manwin v Queensland Building Services Authority [2007] QDC 298
Bone v Commissioner of Stamp Duties [1972] 2 NSWLR 651
Boys v Chaplin [1968] 2 QB 1
Pett v Greyhound Racing Association (No 2) [1970] 1 QB 46
Tillman v Attorney General for the State of New South Wales (2007) 70 NSWLR 448
Anthony Hordern & Sons Ltd v Amalgamated Clothing and Allied Trades Union of Australia (1932) 47 CLR 1
Hope & Anor v Brisbane City Council [2013] QCA 198
David Grant & Co Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation & Ors (1995) 184 CLR 265
Mills v Fowkes (1839) 5 Bing (NC) 455; (1839) 132 ER 1174
Commonwealth of Australia v Mewett (1997) 191 CLR 471
Commonwealth of Australia v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394
Pedersen v Young (1964) 110 CLR 162
Giacci v Giacci Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 233
Bank of China Ltd v CGS (Group) Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 397
Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344
Roma Electric Light & Power Co Ltd v Hair [1955] St R Qd 311
Re Jauncey [1980] Qd R 335
Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland…

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 Watkins 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 535
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) is an application by Mr Russell Ian Watkins, a builder holding a licence under the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991, to review a decision by the Queensland Building Services Authority (Authority) to approve a statutory insurance claim made by a building owner, Ms Ralph, in relation to residential building work performed by Mr Watkins at Ormiston, Brisbane. Mr Watkins also sought an extension of time to commence the substantive application. The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether section 61 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act) allows the Tribunal to extend the time limits in section 86(2) of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (QBSAA), and whether the prohibition in section 86(2) of the QBSAA is substantive or procedural.

Dr J R Forbes, Member, found that the application for review should be read beneficially to refer to at least two categories of decisions that the Tribunal has power to review under the QBSAA. However, the application was filed more than three years after the subject decision was made and must fail unless the Tribunal allows an extraordinarily long extension of time. The Member declined to follow an interlocutory decision of the District Court that section 61 of the QCAT Act enables the Tribunal to extend the time limits in section 86(2) of the QBSAA. The Member held that the prohibition in section 86(2) is substantive and a condition of jurisdiction, and that section 61 of the QCAT Act may not be used to escape it. The application for review was incurably out of time and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain it.

The final orders of the Tribunal were that the application for extension of time and the application for review were dismissed.

Orders