Bradwell Constructions Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2026] QCAT 327

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Bradwell Constructions Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2026] QCAT 327 PARTIES: BRADWELL CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD (applicant) v QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: GAR174-26 MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters DELIVERED ON: 2 July 2026 HEARING DATE: 19 May 2026 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Lee Benjamin ORDERS: The application to extend the time limit filed by the Applicant on 11 March 2026 is granted. CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where application for review filed out of time – whether to extend time to file application for review – where extension of time given to comply with direction to rectify by Queensland Building and Construction Commission – where application for review has merit – where discretion to extend time unfettered – whether extension of time to file application for review is in the interests of justice Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 33, s 61 Harper Property Builders Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QCATA 70 Quinlan v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2019] QCAT 349 Childs v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2019] QCAT 281 Barth v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2026] QCAT 63 -- 1 of 6 -- 2 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). REASONS FOR DECISION What is this decision about? [1] On 11 March 2026, Bradwell Constructions (Bradwell) filed a review application for a 27 June 2025 Queensland Building and Construction Commission (Commission) notification that building work was not satisfactorily rectified at a Gold Coast property (Property). The review application is around 230 days beyond the appeal deadline. Bradwell seeks an extension of time. Bradwell’s explanation for the delay is that: (a) the validity of an underlying internal review decision and internal review direction were actively disputed; (b) related internal review proceedings were ongoing; and (c) a related Tribunal proceeding concerning the same alleged defects had already been commenced. The Commission opposes the extension and says, among other things, that Bradwell’s (a) delay in lengthy; (b) explanation for the same in insufficient; and (c) prospects of success in the underlying proceeding are poor. The question for the Tribunal is whether it is in the interests of justice to extend the appeal deadline. In my view, the answer is yes. What happened? [2] On 19 July 2024, the Commission received a ‘Residential and Commercial Construction Work complaint’ from the Property owners (Owners) regarding work performed at the Property (Complaint). The Complaint included 64 items. On 15 August 2024, the Owners sent an email to the Commission requesting that an additional item be added to the Complaint. Collectively, the Complaint consists of 65 complaint items (Complaint Items). [3] On 10 February 2025, the Commission notified Bradwell and the Owners of its decision not to issue a direction to rectify or complete building work to Bradwell in respect of any of the Complaint Items (Original Decision). [4] On 19 February 2025, the Owners applied for an internal review of the Original Decision (IR Application). [5] On 17 April 2025, the Commission advised the Owners and Bradwell of its decision (IR Decision) to:1 (a) give a direction to rectify in relation to 33 complaint items (DTR Items); and (b) not give a direction to rectify in relation to 10 complaint items. [6] On 23 April 2025, the Commission issued a direction to rectify or complete building work to Bradwell (IR Direction), in accordance with the IR Decision. [7] On 26 May 2025, Bradwell corresponded with the Commission requesting an extension of time to comply with the IR Direction. Bradwell requested the extension 1 The Owners withdrew four Complaint Items from the Complaint. These items were therefore, not considered in Internal Review. -- 2 of 6 -- 3 be in effect until the completion of a related QCAT proceeding (GAR279-25 – a QCAT review application matter commenced by Bradwell to review the IR Direction) and a related internal review matter.2 [8] On 27 May 2025, the Commission approved Bradwell’s extension of time application to comply with the IR Direction to 24 June 2025. [9] On 16 June 2025, Bradwell requested a further extension of time, again seeking an extension to remain in effect pending the final determination of the related QCAT proceeding and internal review matter (Further Extension Request). [10] On 18 June 2025, the Commission declined to grant the Further Extension Request. The Commission contends that the request was declined because: (a) no attempt had been made to rectify any of the items shown in the IR Direction; (b) the QCAT process can take 12 months or more to be finalised and it is not reasonable for the Owners to wait until the QCAT proceeding is finalised to have the items rectified; (c) no record of the direction to rectify or any failure to rectify would be displayed on their licence until after the QCAT matter was resolved; and (d) if the QCAT process revealed the QBCC had been in error in issuing the direction to rectify, the IR Direction would be removed from Bradwell’s licence. [11] On 24 June 2025, the Owners wrote to the Commissioner and stated that Bradwell had not attempted to rectify any of the Complaint Items contained in the IR Direction. The Owners’ correspondence to the Commission may not be accurate. [12] On 27 June 2025, the Commission issued the failure to rectify notice (FTR Notice) to Bradwell. [13] On 11 March 2026, Bradwell filed a review application for the FTR Notice. What question needs to be answered? [14] In an extension of time application, the Tribunal must consider whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension. What is the answer to the question? [15] In my view (and I find that), it is in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time. Why are these the answer to the questions? [16] The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act) empowers the Tribunal to extend a time limit fixed for the start of a proceeding.3 2 Application filed on 6 May 2025. Bradwell has been engaging with the Commission via a Tribunal supervised alternative dispute resolution process. 3 QCAT Act, s 61. -- 3 of 6 -- 4 [17] In Harper Property Builders Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission4 (Harper) the Appeal Tribunal said the following in relation to s 61: (a) the discretion to extend time is unfettered;5 (b) the following matters have been recognised as particularly relevant considerations in the exercise of discretion: 1. the length of the delay; 2. the adequacy of explanation for the delay;6 3. the merits of the proceeding sought to be litigated; 4. prejudice to others; and 5. the interests of justice (sometimes expressed as ‘general considerations of fairness’).7 [18] I will briefly address these factors. [19] On the length of the delay and prejudice: there is no dispute that the Applicant was required to file its a review application for the FTR Notice in the Tribunal within 28 days after the “relevant day”.8 Bradwell was notified of the FTR Notice on 27 June 2025. Accordingly, Bradwell was required to have filed the review application by 25 July 2025. Bradwell did not file the review application until 11 March 2026, some 228 days outside the prescribed timeframe. [20] The Commission submits that the delay in this case is “a very lengthy delay” in the context of the 28-day time period intended by the QCAT Act. In making this submission, the Commission has referred me to several cases in which past Tribunals have cited delay periods of more six months to over two years as constituting “a very lengthy delay”.9 I accept the Commission’s contention. I also accept the Commission’s submission that it is entitled to expect external review applications to be filed promptly.10 This factor obviously weights against Bradwell. However, as the Commission concedes, the length of the delay is not the only factor to which the Tribunal must have regard. [21] On the explanation for the delay: Bradwell says: 4 [2018] QCATA 70. 5 Except to the extent that s 61 precludes such an extension when it would cause prejudice or detriment, that could not be remedied by an appropriate order for costs or damages. 6 The Appeal Tribunal did not state that this factor was a pre-condition to the exercise of the Tribunal’s Discretion. 7 At [26]. 8 Section 33(3) of the QCAT Act provides that an application for the review of a “reviewable decision” must be made within 28 days after the relevant day. “Relevant day” is defined in section 33(4)(a) of the QCAT Act as “the day the applicant is notified of the decision”. 9 Commission submissions dated 16 April 2026 at [60] - [69]: Quinlan v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2019] QCAT 349 at [23]; and Childs v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2019] QCAT 281 at [15]. 10 Commission submissions dated 16 April 2026 at [54] - [59]: -- 4 of 6 -- 5 (a) that the validity of the underlying IR Decision and IR Direction was actively disputed; (b) related QBCC internal review proceedings were ongoing; and (c) a related QCAT proceeding concerning the same alleged defects had already been commenced. [22] The Commission submits that Bradwell has provided insufficient explanation for the delay, in circumstances where:11 (a) a review of a decision does not stay a direction to rectify, nor does the lodging of a review application before the Tribunal. Per section 87A of the QBCC Act, the Tribunal cannot grant a stay of the effect of the decision to give a direction to rectify to Bradwell; (b) the delay is very lengthy; and (c) on page 5 of the FTR Notice, the Commission advised Bradwell of their review rights and the requisite timeframes for such rights to be exercised. [23] On balance, while I accept that Bradwell’s stated explanation for its delay in filing the review application is light on, I consider it sufficient. I would observe that the legislative scheme for reviewing Commission decisions arguably invites multiple review applications across separate but related matters for a single transaction of building work on a single property. [24] On the merits of the proceeding sought to be litigated: the Commission contends that Bradwell’s prospects of success in their review application are poor and the application lacks substance.12 [25] The Commission says that this is so because the matter concerns the question of whether the building work undertaken by Bradwell at the direction of the Commission was or was not of a satisfactory standard. [26] The Commission submits that evidence before the Commission indicates that Bradwell did not undertake any building work at the direction of the Commission following the issue of the IR Direction (and subsequent extension period), operable between 23 April 2024 and its expiry on 24 June 2025, as outlined above. The Commission, therefore, submits the Applicant has not undertaken “building work” pursuant to the IR Direction. [27] It is unclear how the Commission can make these submissions. The Commission appears to be aware that Bradwell (and its subcontractors) attempted to undertake “building work” at the Property but was otherwise prevented from doing so by the Owners. In Barth v Queensland Building and Construction Commission,13 the Tribunal concluded that: …it may be satisfied that “undertaking” building work is to include the arrangement of meetings and inspections. If there exists a manifestation of an 11 Commission submissions dated 16 April 2026 at [47] - [48]. 12 Commission submissions dated 16 April 2026 at [14] - [15]: 13 [2026] QCAT 63. -- 5 of 6 -- 6 intention to conduct on-site inspections and meetings, whether that be through communication with the possessor of the property subject to the decision to rectify, in a sense, building work could … have occurred as a matter of fact.14 if a builder endeavoured to comply … but was denied access by the homeowner, it would be an unjust outcome to issue a decision that work undertaken by the builder at the direction of the Commission was not of a satisfactory standard because it wasn’t completed – even if such a statement is factually correct. If such a decision were to issue as a matter of course, it may bring the building industry into disrepute, striking an unreasonable balance between the interests of building contractors and consumers, directly in breach of the Commission’s objectives under the Act.15 [28] It seems to me that Bradwell has arguably good prospects for success in its application. I find this factor to be compelling. [29] On the interests of justice: in my view, when considering all the factors together, I find that it is in the interests of justice for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion to grant the extension of time application. 14 At [44]. 15 At [59]. -- 6 of 6 --