QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
West v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2019] QCAT 237
PARTIES: AMY-ROSE WEST (applicant)
v
QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
GAR284-18
MATTER TYPE:
General administrative review matters
DELIVERED ON:
22 August 2019
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Member Howe
ORDERS:
Matter GAR284-18 is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where the applicant complained about a private certifier – where the respondent investigated the complaint – where the applicant sought external review of the decision of the respondent that the certifier had not engaged in unsatisfactory conduct or professional misconduct in the Tribunal – where the respondent applied to strike out the proceedings on the basis of lack of standing to bring an application for review in the Tribunal – where alternatively the respondent claimed the application should be struck out on the basis that the complaints lacked substance
Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14(4)
Building Act 1975 (Qld), s 136(1), s 179(3)(d), s 180(a),
s 190(1), s 194, s 204(1), s 204(2)
Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 86A, s 87
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 47Building Regulation 2006 (Qld), s 30(2)(a), s 31(1), s 31(2)
Allan v Transurban City Link Limited [2001] HCA 58
Alphapharm Pty Ltd v SmithKline Beecham (Australia) Pty Ltd [1994] FCA 996
Argos Pty Ltd v Corbell, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development [2014] HCA 50
Control Investments Pty Ltd & Ors v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal [1980] AATA 78
REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:
Self-represented
Respondent:
Self-represented by D McNulty, Solicitor
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
On 9 March 2017 a development approval was issued by a building certifier, Mr Dunn, authorising construction of an in-ground fibreglass swimming pool and pool fence at a property at Coolum Beach.
On 17 July 2017 another certifier, Mr Wibrow, was engaged to conduct a final inspection of the pool and fence. Mr Wibrow issued a form 17 final inspection certificate approving the pool and fence.
Ms West owns land next door. On 10 November 2017 she complained to the respondent (‘QBCC’) about the pool and fence and both certifiers.
QBCC dismissed the complaint against Mr Dunn.
In relation to Mr Wibrow, QBCC investigators determined that the certifier had not engaged in unsatisfactory conduct or professional misconduct.
Ms West sought internal review of that decision by review officers of QBCC. On 25 July 2018 QBCC made an internal review decision again concluding that the building certifier had not engaged in either unsatisfactory conduct or professional misconduct.
Ms West filed an application in the Tribunal seeking review of the QBCC internal review decision. QBCC has now brought an application asking that Ms West’s application to the Tribunal be dismissed or struck out pursuant…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read West v Queensland Building and Construction Commission 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] QCAT 237
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether Ms West had standing to bring an application for review in QCAT and, if so, whether the complaints had sufficient substance. Standing to bring an application for review in QCAT requires that the applicant be affected by a reviewable decision. This contrasts with the internal review process, where standing is based on being given or entitled to be given notice of a reviewable decision. The court considered the distinction between standing to challenge an administrative decision through judicial review and standing to bring proceedings in the course of administrative review. The court examined whether Ms West had an interest in the internal review decision that was above any other member of the public. The court held that Ms West did not have standing to bring the application in QCAT as she was not affected by the internal review decision. The court further found that the complaints lacked substance.
The court dismissed Ms West’s application for review. The court held that Ms West did not have standing to bring the application in QCAT as she was not affected by the internal review decision. The court held that the complaints lacked substance. The matter GAR284-18 was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Matter GAR284-18 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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.