Yan v Queensland Building Services Authority

CITATION: Yan v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCATA 232

PARTIES:	Lihong Yan (Appellant)
V
Queensland Building Services Authority (First Respondent) Anthony Brian Lapham (Second Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL404-12

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Hon K Cullinane AM QC, Judicial Member

DELIVERED ON: 6 August 2013

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.     Appeal is dismissed.

2.     Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL –ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – DOMESTIC BUILDING CONTRACT – where the Appellant complained to the First Respondent about the construction work of the Second Respondent – where the First Respondent decided not order rectification – where the Appellant sought to review that decision – where the Tribunal confirmed the First Respondent’s decisions – where the Appellant seeks to appeal that decision – whether leave to appeal should be granted

Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (Qld), s 86

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 43(3), s 95

Queensland Building Services Authority v Macdonald (2012) QCATA 237

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This is an appeal and an application for leave to appeal.  The matter was heard on the papers.

2. The decision of the Tribunal the subject of this proceeding was delivered on the 22 October 2012 and concerned the review of certain determinations of the First Respondent.

3. The Second Respondent (Lapham) was a builder.  He entered into a contract for the construction of a dwelling with the Appellant through his attorney Miss Li Li.  All of the relevant dealings were with Miss Li Li who appeared on behalf of the appellant in the hearing.

4. A number of complaints were made by Miss Li Li about the construction work of the Second Respondent. Being unhappy with the determinations on those complaints the appellant sought review by the Tribunal of those decisions pursuant to s 86 of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 as amended. The Tribunal confirmed the determinations of the First Respondent.

5. The grounds of appeal in the notice of appeal and application for leave to appeal are as follows:

   (1)The Tribunal erred in allowing the First Respondent to be legally represented whereas the Appellant was not;

   (2)The Tribunal erred in proceeding to admit Mr Lapham’s evidence in view of the fact that the appellant was not afforded any opportunity to cross-examine him;

   (3)The Tribunal erred in not adjourning the hearing on the second day thereof namely 28 September 2012 when Mr Lapham failed to attend so as to afford the appellant an opportunity to compel his attendance;

   (4)The Tribunal erred in not finding that item 27 - landscaping formed part of the contract;

   (5)The Tribunal erred in not finding that item 37 - external painting formed part of the contract;

   (6)The Tribunal erred in admitting evidence in relation to any relationship of a romantic and/or sexual…