Dixonbuild Ptd Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2026] QCA 18

[2026] QCA 18 COURT OF APPEAL MULLINS P BODDICE JA BRADLEY JA Appeal No 4304 of 2025 QCAT No 185 of 2023 DIXONBUILD PTY LTD Applicant v QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION Respondent COMMISSION BRISBANE MONDAY, 16 FEBRUARY 2026 JUDGMENT [1] MULLINS P: I will ask Justice Bradley to deliver the first judgment. [2] BRADLEY JA: The applicant seeks leave to appeal a decision of the appeal tribunal of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The applicant accepts that this Court’s jurisdiction is confined to appeals on a question of fact or questions of law. The Court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal on questions of fact or on a mixed question of law and fact.1 [3] The four proposed grounds of appeal are beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. 1 Allen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2024] QCA 24, [16]-[20]. -- 1 of 3 -- 2 [4] The first proposed ground involves the power of the respondent to issue a direction to rectify under section 72 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (the Act) in specific circumstances. The existence of those circumstances is, it seems, disputed. In particular, the dispute concerns findings of fact made about things by the original tribunal member and accepted by the Appeal Tribunal. It is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court to determine those facts, even as an element or incident of deciding the proper construction of the Act. [5] The second proposed ground of appeal concerns the power of the respondent to issue a direction to rectify without the applicant being given an opportunity to rectify the defect. The decision of the respondent in this, and indeed every other contentious respect, has been overtaken by the decision of the learned tribunal member following a merits review of the respondent’s original decision. An appeal about the respondent’s original decision would therefore serve no purpose. [6] The third proposed ground of appeal concerns the tribunal member’s finding that it was not unfair for the respondent to issue a direction to rectify. This was a finding on a question of mixed law and fact. It is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court to determine the relevant facts, even as an element or a step on the way to deciding the legal elements of this mixed question. [7] The fourth proposed ground of appeal concerns the tribunal member’s decision to prefer the evidence of one witness over another as to the factual circumstances under which the waterproofing of a shower base was tested, specifically the depth of water in the shower base. The applicant contends that its witness’s evidence was rejected on the basis that the witness was not present when the testing was carried out. The applicant’s witness had superimposed a tape measure over a photograph taken by the respondent’s inspector during the testing. The tribunal member did not accept the “validity” of the assumptions made by the applicant’s witness about the depth of water in the shower base. Nor did the tribunal member accept the virtual “recreation” of the respondent’s inspector’s test. The tribunal member accepted the evidence of the respondent’s inspector as to the test he conducted, and “the height to which he filled the shower base.” He also accepted the evidence of the respondent’s inspector that the test was in accordance with industry standards, and an appropriate one to test the waterproofing of the shower base. It follows that the fourth proposed question is -- 2 of 3 -- 3 not a question of law, purely stated. Indeed, it seems to involve, for the most part, questions of fact. [8] As the above brief narrative indicates, the matter in issue in the proceeding was a direction to the applicant builder to rectify defective waterproofing of a shower base in a domestic home. As the builder applicant concedes, it involves “only limited consequences in a pecuniary sense”. It is not clear how it could be said to involve any significant issue. [9] For the reasons above, leave to appeal should be refused, with costs. [10] MULLINS P: I agree. [11] BODDICE JA: I agree. [12] MULLINS P: The order of the Court is: Leave to appeal is refused, with costs. [13] Thank you for your assistance. We will adjourn. -- 3 of 3 --