Yeo v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2025] QCAT 90

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Yeo & Anor v Queensland Building and Construction Commission & Anor [2025] QCAT 90

PARTIES:

DAXTER YEO AND HELEN SHUK YEE NG

(applicants)

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

(first respondent)

DE MARCO CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD
(second respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR277-18

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

10 March 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Deane

ORDERS:

1. The Application for miscellaneous matters filed 13 October 2023 seeking an order for costs against the Queensland Building and Construction Commission is dismissed.

2. There is no order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL MATTERS – POWER TO AWARD GENERALLY – STATUTORY BASIS GENERALLY – whether the interests of justice require an award of costs – whether the QBCC caused the Homeowners unnecessary disadvantage

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 3, s 7, s 25, s 26

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 21, s 100, s 102, s 105

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld), s 86

Ascot v Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia [2010] QCAT 364

Campbell v Queensland Building and Construction Commission (No 2) [2023] QCAT 54
Cowen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCATA 103
Fuge v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2014] QCAT 383
Health Ombudsmanv du Toit [2024] QCA 235
Marzini v Health Ombudsman (No 4) [2020] QCAT 365
Queensland Building and Construction Commission v B&L Constructions Qld Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] QCATA 107
Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No 2) [2010] QCAT 412
Robertson and Robertson v Airstrike Industrial Pty Ltd [2011] QCAT 120
Tamawood Ltd v Paans [2005] 2 Qd R 101

Yeo & Anor v Queensland Building and Construction Commission & Anor [2023] QCAT 367

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

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

Applicants:

S Taylor, instructed by Carter Newell Lawyers

First Respondent:

Second Respondent:

R Ensby, Gadens Lawyers

R De Marco

REASONS FOR DECISION

Daxter Yeo and Helen Shuk Yee Ng (‘the Homeowners’) successfully applied to set aside the decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (‘QBCC’) to disallow a claim under the Statutory Insurance Scheme (‘SIS’).[1] The QBCC disallowed their claim on the grounds that the Homeowners had not properly terminated the Contract for the default of De Marco Constructions Pty Ltd (‘the Contractor’).
[1]Yeo & Anor v Queensland Building and Construction Commission & Anor [2023] QCAT 367.
By decision made 11 September 2023, I decided that the Homeowners had properly terminated the contract with the Contractor for the Contractor’s default. I ordered that the matter be returned to the QBCC for reconsideration, ordered the Contractor to pay to the Homeowners certain costs thrown away and set a timetable if a party wished to seek other costs and…

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 Yeo 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

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: [2025] QCAT 90
Decision Date: 10 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Yeo v Queensland Building and Construction Commission was before the court, involving a dispute between the plaintiff and the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC). The plaintiff sought an order for costs against the QBCC, arguing that the Commission's actions caused unnecessary disadvantage to the Homeowners. The case was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT).

The primary legal issues the court was required to decide were whether the interests of justice required an award of costs against the QBCC and whether the QBCC's actions caused unnecessary disadvantage to the Homeowners. The court needed to consider the statutory basis for awarding costs and the broader principles of justice in determining these issues.

In reaching its decision, the court carefully examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the QBCC did not cause the Homeowners unnecessary disadvantage and therefore dismissed the application for costs. The court concluded that there were no grounds to award costs to the plaintiff, as the interests of justice did not require it. Consequently, the application for miscellaneous matters filed on 13 October 2023 was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Application for miscellaneous matters filed 13 October 2023 seeking an order for costs against the Queensland Building and Construction Commission is dismissed.

2. There is no order as to costs.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.