Court of Appeal

Share this

Queensland Building & Construction Commission v Robuild Pty Ltd [2014] QCA 081 (13/8882) Holmes and Muir JJA and Applegarth J 15/04/2014

Full-text: QCA14-081.pdf

Catchwords

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where a tribunal member of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) found that the applicant, Queensland Building Construction Commission, had not effected proper service of an infringement notice on the respondent – where the appeal tribunal of QCAT refused leave to appeal the tribunal member’s decision – where the applicant sought leave to appeal what were said to be errors of law by the appeal tribunal – whether any question of general importance was involved – whether any substantial injustice had resulted from the appeal tribunal’s decision – whether leave should be granted to appeal

Summary Notes

Application for Leave Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act – where the applicant, Queensland Building Construction Commission (QBCC), seeks leave to appeal a decision of the appeal tribunal of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) which refused leave to appeal a tribunal member’s decision – where a tribunal member of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal found that the applicant, Queensland Building Construction Commission, had not effected proper service of an infringement notice on the respondent – where the infringement notice was for an offence under s 72(10) of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991, of failing to rectify defective building work as required by a direction – where QBCC had sought to strike out Robuild’s application to review the direction to rectify; whether the strike-out application succeeded depended on whether the infringement notice had been properly served – where the appeal tribunal of QCAT refused leave to appeal the tribunal member’s decision – where the applicant sought leave to appeal what were said to be errors of law by the appeal tribunal – whether any question of general importance was involved – whether any substantial injustice had resulted from the appeal tribunal’s decision – whether leave should be granted to appeal – where at the hearing of the leave application, counsel for QBCC brought the court’s attention to QBCC’s very recent realisation that s 109A of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act, relied on below, was irrelevant – where instead, the applicable provision was s 13 of the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999, which provides for service of an infringement notice where an authorised person reasonably believes that an “infringement notice offence” has been committed – where QBCC’s application to dismiss Robuild’s review application turned, as has already been noted, on whether Robuild had been served with the infringement notice – where QBCC’s solicitor deposed that the proposed appeal grounds concerned “matters of general importance in the context of [QBCC’s] being able to have efficient and consistent systems and clarity as to the service of documents and infringement notices as part of its administration of the Home Warranty Scheme.” – where it is difficult to see that the aims of efficiency, consistency and clarity are likely to be served in circumstances where the entire argument was mounted, until the hearing of the current leave application, on the basis of legislation which QBCC now contends does not apply – where there would seem little justice or, indeed, point, in this court’s now intervening when QBCC’s applications in the tribunal appear to have been misconceived throughout and Robuild has had no opportunity to respond to the submission that the State Penalties Enforcement Act applies – where no substantial injustice has been shown to have resulted from the identified error – where there is no reason to suppose, were leave granted, that a different outcome would be produced. Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.