Wyatt v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Wyatt & Anor v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QCAT 396

PARTIES:

DONNA WYATT

(first applicant)

CASEY WYATT
(second applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR163-17

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

26 November 2018

HEARING DATE:

14 December 2017

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Holzberger

ORDERS:

The application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – General administrative review – where the review application specified a particular decision by date but particulars implied reference to another earlier decision- whether a decision to allow a claim on the statutory insurance scheme is reviewable – whether a decision to accept a tender is reviewable – jurisdiction to review a scope of works decision out of time – whether scope of works unreasonable unnecessary or excessive

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 71A(2), s 86, s 86F
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 33(3), s 61

Aramac Constructions Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2015] QCAT 364
Queensland Building and Construction Commission v Watkins [2014] QCA 172

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

L Tassell, solicitor of HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Donna Wyatt and Casey Wyatt (‘the Wyatts’) have applied to the Tribunal to review a decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (‘QBCC’) made on 20 April 2017 (‘the 20 April 2017 decision’) to confirm the Wyatts’ claim under the Statutory Insurance Scheme had been approved for an amount of $15,860.00 for rectification of defective work in the construction of a patio on their property, based on a quote received from Envate Pty Ltd (‘Envate’) for the amended scope of works.

2. In their application, the Wyatts specifically identify the decision to be reviewed as the 20 April 2017 decision, but describe details of the decision to be reviewed as ‘QBCC selection of repair method to patio structure (60424)’.[1]

   [1]Application to review decision filed 26 June 2017, Part B p 4.

3. The Wyatts’ complaint is that the rectification method proposed by Envate will result in the lowering of the roof line, which they say will adversely affect the functionality and appearance of the structure.

4. The QBCC should, they say, have selected the tender of Echo Build Pty Ltd which proposed a different rectification method, a flyover patio roof, which raised rather than lowered the roofline.

5. In written submissions to the Tribunal, the QBCC says:

   (a)The 20 April 2017 decision is not a reviewable decision for the purposes of s 86 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (‘QBCC Act’);

   (b)If the 20 April 2017 decision is a reviewable decision, the application is out of time; and

   (c)If the application can be said to be an application for review of the amended scope of works, it is out of time.

6. For the reasons set out below, I agree with those submissions and dismiss the application.

7. The application clearly…