Barth v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2026] QCAT 63

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Barth v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2026] QCAT 63 PARTIES: RODNEY DEAN BARTH (applicant) v QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: GAR708-24 MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters DELIVERED ON: 6 February 2026 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Senior Member Lember ORDERS: The application for miscellaneous matters (strike- out/dismissal) filed 13 December 2024 is refused. CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where Tribunal empowered by enabling act – where Tribunal has jurisdiction to review a decision under the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) – where contextual interpretation of terms made – where Queensland Building and Construction Commission direct that works be undertaken – where no works undertaken – whether decision that works not completed is reviewable - where summary dismissal sought – whether application lacks merit Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 14A Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) s 3, s 86, s 86E, s 87, s 72 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 17, s 19, s 20, s 24, s 32, s 47 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 292, r 293 Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552 Certain Lloyd's Underwriters Subscribing to Contract No IH00AAQS v Cross (2012) 248 CLR 378 CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd Crocker v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2024] QCAT 73 -- 1 of 12 -- 2 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Salcedo [2005] QCA 227 Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62 General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125. Jeffrey Knuth v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2024] QCAT 159 JM Kelly (Project Builders) Pty Ltd v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCAT 502 Markan v Bar Association of Queensland [2013] QSC 146. Nazzari & Anor v Queensland Building and Construction Commission & Anor [2022] QCAT 39 Platinum United II Pty Ltd & Anor v Secured Mortgage Management Ltd (in liq) [2011] QCA 162 Scott-Holland v Commissioner of State Revenue [2023] QCAT 203 Simons & Ors v Dowd Lawyers Pty Ltd [2020] QCAT 348 Vytla v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2024] QCAT 346 Yeo v Brisbane Polo Club Inc [2013] QCAT 261 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) (QCAT Act). Applicant: Self-represented. Respondent: Queensland Building and Construction Commission in- house lawyers. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] On 24 October 2024, the applicant, Mr Barth, made an application to review a decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (the Commission) which was made on 14 October 2024. The decision was set out in correspondence from the Commission to Mr Barth titled “work not fixed or completed” (the decision). [2] This decision concerns an application for miscellaneous matters filed by the Commission on 13 December 2024 that seeks to strike-out or dismiss Mr Barth’s application for review for lack of jurisdiction under s 86(1)(f) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (the QBCC Act).1 [3] The Commission have made submissions in support of the strike-out application, but Mr Barth was non-responsive. [4] The application to strike out is refused for the reasons that follow. 1 Annexure A – Submissions in Support of Application to Dismiss Proceeding filed 13 December 2024, paragraph 3(a). -- 2 of 12 -- 3 Relevant legislation [5] Section 17(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (the QCAT Act) states that: 17 Generally (c) The tribunal’s review jurisdiction is the jurisdiction conferred on the tribunal by an enabling Act to review a decision made or taken to have been made by another entity under that Act. … [6] The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review decisions of the Commission is enlivened by section 87 of the QBCC Act which states that: 87 Application for review A person affected by a reviewable decision of the commission may apply, as provided under the QCAT Act, to the tribunal for a review of the decision. [7] Under section 86E of the QBCC Act, the definition of a reviewable decision for the purposes of a review to the tribunal (external review) is: reviewable decision means— (a) a reviewable decision within the meaning of subdivision 1, other than a decision that was the subject of an internal review under subdivision 1; or (b) an internal review decision within the meaning of subdivision 1. [8] Section 86 of the QBCC Act contains the exhaustive list of reviewable decisions under subdivision 1 and, relevantly, section 86(1)(f) states: 86 Reviewable decisions (c) Each of the following decisions of the commission under this Act is a reviewable decision— … (f) a decision that building work undertaken at the direction of the commission is or is not of a satisfactory standard; [9] Section 19 of the QCAT Act stipulates how the tribunal should exercise its review jurisdiction, namely: 19 Exercising review jurisdiction generally In exercising its review jurisdiction, the tribunal— (a) must decide the review in accordance with this Act and the enabling Act under which the reviewable decision being reviewed was made; and (b) may perform the functions conferred on the tribunal by this Act or the enabling Act under which the reviewable decision being reviewed was made; and (c) has all the functions of the decision-maker for the reviewable decision being reviewed. -- 3 of 12 -- 4 [10] Pursuant to section 20(1) of the QCAT Act, the purpose of a review proceeding is to, “produce the correct and preferable decision”, which is done “by way of a fresh hearing on the merits.”2 [11] On review, section 24(1) limits the power of the Tribunal to: (a) confirming or amending the decision; or (b) setting the decision aside and substituting its own decision; or (c) setting the decision aside and returning the matter to the decision-maker for reconsideration, with the directions the tribunal considers appropriate. [12] Section 47 of the QCAT Act permits the Tribunal to dismiss or strike out an application if the Tribunal considers a proceeding, or a part of a proceeding is: (a) frivolous, vexatious, or misconceived; or (b) lacking in substance; or (c) otherwise an abuse of process. [13] In Simons & Ors v Dowd Lawyers Pty Ltd [2020] QCAT 348, Judicial Member, the Hon Peter Lyons QC, drew comparisons between section 47 of the QCAT Act and rules 292 and 293 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR), in which it has been relevantly established that it is a: …well established principle that issues raised in proceedings will be determined summarily only in the clearest of cases.3 [14] Certainly, a summary dismissal is not appropriate where the dispute is one of fact. In Yeo v Brisbane Polo Club Inc [2013] QCAT 261, Member Howard echoed the principles in Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62, stating: A question of fact may not be determined in summary proceedings. Summary dismissal should not be granted simply because it appears an applicant is unlikely to succeed on an issue of fact, in circumstances where there are factual issues in dispute and capable of dispute. [15] It has also been said that the power to strike out ought only to be exercised “sparingly” and “when a claim is groundless or futile”,4 that the lack of any cause of action must be very clear,5 and that the Tribunal ought to be satisfied to a “high degree of certainty about the outcome” to strike the proceeding out.6 Factual background to the dispute [16] As the application to strike out was filed shortly after the proceeding commenced, the parties have not yet been directed to file evidence. The Commission has filed its 2 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act), s 20(2). 3 Simons & Ors v Dowd Lawyers Pty Ltd [2020] QCAT 348 per Hon Peter Lyons QC referring to McMurdo P in Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Salcedo [2005] QCA 227. 4 Yeo v Brisbane Polo Club Inc [2013] QCAT 261, [5]-[7] citing Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners [1949] 78 CLR 62. 5 General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125. 6 Yeo, ibid at [6], citing Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552; Platinum United II Pty Ltd & Anor v Secured Mortgage Management Ltd (in liq) [2011] QCA 162; Markan v Bar Association of Queensland [2013] QSC 146. -- 4 of 12 -- 5 Statement of Reasons for the decision under review dated 12 February 2025, together with supporting documents. [17] To the extent it is possible to do so in the absence of filed and contested evidence, the factual background to the dispute may be summarised as follows: (a) On 11 December 2017, Ms Gollan, a property owner, contracted with Mr Barth, a licensed pool builder, concreter, and landscaper, for the installation of a concrete pool and landscaping at her home (the works). (b) The works were insured under the Commission’s statutory insurance scheme under the terms of its Rectification of Building Work Policy. (c) The works were completed at the property on 17 September 2019. (d) On 19 February 2024 the Commission received a complaint by Ms Gollan alleging defective building work comprising cracked tiles, loose pool fence panels, corroded fixings, slipping and shifting of bricks and widening and sinking of a retaining wall. (e) Following a building inspection and report, Mr Barth was directed to rectify some of the complaint items, but not others. (f) Upon an internal review initiated by Mr Barth, the first direction was withdrawn and on 6 September 2024, the Commission directed Mr Barth to rectify defective building work with respect to the retaining wall only, by 11 October 2024. (g) On 9 October 2024, Mr Barth applied to extend time to comply with the direction, because he had been in the Whitsundays, and would need to instruct engineers to plan and certify the work, arrange trades and access to the site, and have the works approved by the body corporate for the property. (h) The request to extend time was refused on the basis that the Commission were unable to determine a genuine intent on Mr Barth’s behalf to complete the works. [18] The decision under review then issued by a letter dated 14 October 2024 titled “WORK NOT FIXED OR COMPLETED” noting that Mr Barth had “not completed the work directed by the QBCC under the [QBCC Act] section 72”, namely, Mr Barth had “not completed satisfactorily” the direction item pertaining to the retaining wall. [19] The Commission submits that no work has been undertaken at the direction of the Commission within the provided compliance period.7 No submissions were filed in response to this allegation, and whether it is factually true is a matter for evidence that is not yet before the tribunal. [20] It certainly appears from Mr Barth’s email to the Commission dated 9 October 2024 seeking an extension of time to comply with the direction, that work had not commenced by 11 October 2024, the due date for complying with the direction to rectify the retaining wall works. 7 Annexure A – Submissions in Support of Application to Dismiss Proceeding filed 13 December 2024, paragraphs 64-73. -- 5 of 12 -- 6 [21] The application to review a decision filed on 24 October 2024 does not explicitly address the issue but alludes to the fact that the works the subject of the decision were not completed satisfactorily within the time required because Mr Barth refers to the work that is still required to be done.8 The Commission’s position [22] The Commission submits that the application to strike-out should succeed as the Tribunal should be satisfied that: (a) Building work must be undertaken, i.e. commenced by the contractor, at the direction of the Commission to enliven the tribunal’s jurisdiction to review the decision per section 86(1)(f) of the QBCC Act;9 and (b) no work was undertaken by Mr Barth at the direction of the Commission during the period provided to comply with the direction;10 and (c) therefore, the Tribunal should dismiss the application under s 47 of the QCAT Act11 for want of jurisdiction, because the decision is not reviewable. [23] The Tribunal accepts that, if the assertions at (a) and (b) above are indeed correct, the matter must be dismissed because the decision is not reviewable. Must work be undertaken at the direction of the Commission to enliven the Tribunal’s jurisdiction for a decision purportedly reviewed under s 86(1)(f) of the QBCC Act? [24] The High Court has indicated a clear preference for the manner in which Courts, and for present purposes, Tribunals, approach statutory interpretation. In CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd, a majority of the Court explained that: [T]he modern approach to statutory interpretation… insists that the context be considered in the first instance, not merely at some later stage when ambiguity might be thought to arise, and (b) uses "context" in its widest sense to include such things as the existing state of the law and the mischief which, by legitimate means such as [reference to extrinsic materials], one may discern the statute was intended to remedy… Further, inconvenience or improbability of result may assist the court in preferring to the literal meaning an alternative construction which, by the steps identified above, is reasonably open and more closely conforms to the legislative intent.12 [25] In this way, the Tribunal seeks to determine the contextual matrix in which section 86(1)(f) of the QBCC Act operates, with reference to the purposes of the Act, before turning to the consequential “inconvenience or improbability” of any proposed interpretation. [26] It is a well-established principle that words and phrases should not be viewed in isolation, and it is necessary to observe them in their broader context to inform their intended meaning.13 Thus, to ascertain the intended interpretation of section 86(1)(f) 8 Application to review a decision filed on 24 October 2024. 9 Annexure A – Submissions in Support of Application to Dismiss Proceeding filed 13 December 2024, paragraphs 35-36. 10 Ibid, paragraphs 64-73. 11 Ibid, paragraph 3(a). 12 (1997) 187 CLR 38, 408 (Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey and Gummow JJ). 13 See Certain Lloyd's Underwriters Subscribing to Contract No IH00AAQS v Cross (2012) 248 CLR 378, 393. -- 6 of 12 -- 7 of the QBCC Act, it is important that specific words and phrases of the provision are not isolated from their surrounding context. [27] Echoing this sentiment, in Crocker v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2024] QCAT 73, Member Olding stated: Parliament must be assumed to have intended provisions within an enactment would operate in a consistent and coherent fashion.14 [28] The proper interpretation of section 86(1)(f) of the QBCC Act ought to be the interpretation that operates most coherently with, and does not disturb the intended function of, section 87 of the QBCC Act. [29] As mentioned above, section 87 of the QBCC Act states that: A person affected by a reviewable decision of the commission may apply, as provided under the QCAT Act, to the tribunal for a review of the decision. [30] As is clear from the wording of this provision, it is the decision that is the empowering instrument of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. This was discussed by former Deputy President of QCAT, Horneman-Wren J in JM Kelly (Project Builders) Pty Ltd v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCAT 502 who observed that: Where, in contrast, the Tribunal is exercising review jurisdiction, the only matter, the only jurisdictional fact, of which the Tribunal need satisfy itself is the existence of a decision of a kind the Tribunal has power to review. Whether there is such a decision which falls within the Tribunal’s review jurisdiction is governed by the relevant statutes which confer the review jurisdiction on the Tribunal. It is a construction of those statutes which determines whether it is necessary that there be a valid decision made in a lawful exercise of the decision making power in order for the decision to be reviewable. (emphasis added) [31] The Commission’s contention that the Tribunal must make a preliminary finding, that goes beyond the content of the decision, and to determine first whether any work was carried out to establish jurisdiction, appears inconsistent with the Tribunal’s ordinary notion of jurisdiction in review matters. [32] As such, the mere existence of a decision that building work undertaken at the direction of the Commission is not of a satisfactory standard ought to suffice for the purposes of enlivening section 86(1)(f). [33] In this matter, the decision under review: (a) makes specific reference to the works the subject of the direction to rectify; and (b) explicitly states that those works “have not been completed satisfactorily”. [34] Accordingly, the decision is one that plainly falls within the ambit of s 86(1)(f) of the QBCC Act, irrespective of any surrounding circumstances that may indicate otherwise. [35] Section 14A(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) states that: In the interpretation of a provision of an Act, the interpretation that will best achieve the purpose of the Act is to be preferred to any other interpretation. 14 Crocker v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2024] QCAT 73 at [19]. -- 7 of 12 -- 8 [36] The Tribunal must therefore be satisfied that its interpretation is more adapted to “achieve a reasonable balance between the interests of building contractors and building owners”.15 [37] If the Tribunal were to accept the submissions of the Commission, the logical consequence would be that a contractor who has not commenced the work that is the subject of a direction to rectify is denied review rights. This may even occur in circumstances where the homeowners have refused access to the property to permit the works to be undertaken, whereas a second contractor who, even marginally or notionally, perhaps for a matter of minutes only, enters a site and commences work the subject of the direction and then unilaterally ceases, does have review rights. [38] I am not satisfied that this alternative interpretation offered by the Commission is the interpretation that will best achieve the purpose of the QBCC Act. The ability for a homeowner to, by refusing entry to the site, unilaterally deprive a contractor of review rights is not a “reasonable balance”, nor is the ability of a contractor to create a reviewable decision by performing a nominal or token action when presented with a direction to rectify. [39] For the above reasons I reject the interpretation provided by the QBCC in their submissions and find that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this matter under section 86(1)(f) of the QBCC Act, regardless of the existence of work subject to a decision that building work undertaken at the direction of the Commission has not been completed satisfactorily. Has building work has been undertaken at the direction of the Commission within the period provided to comply ? [40] The term “building work” is defined in Schedule 2 dictionary to the QBCC Act. It has not been raised by the Commission in their submissions if they accept the definition with respect to section 86(1)(f) of the QBCC Act, however reading the act as a whole, I find that the Tribunal should adopt that definition when interpreting section 86(1)(f). [41] The word “undertaken” is not defined in Schedule 2 dictionary to the QBCC Act. Taking a congruent approach that of the Tribunal in Scott-Holland v Commissioner of State Revenue16, I will now investigate similar terms as defined in the Act. [42] Similar terms are relevantly defined in schedule 2 of the QBCC Act as follows: (a) ‘Undertake to carry out’, for building work, includes entering into a contract, submitting a tender or making an offer to carry out the work. (b) ‘Carry out’ means (for domestic building contracts) any of: (i) carry out the work personally; (ii) directly or indirectly cause the work to be carried out; or (iii) provide building work services for the work. (c) ‘Building work services’ means one or more of the following for building work; (i) administration services; 15 Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) s 3(d). 16 [2023] QCAT 203. -- 8 of 12 -- 9 (ii) advisory services; (iii) management services; and (iv) supervisory services. (d) ‘Administration services’ includes: (i) Arranging and conducting on-site meetings and inspections; and (ii) Arranging for certificates, including certificates from a local government to be issued. (e) ‘Management services’ means co-ordinating the schedule of work by building contractors including as agent for another person. [43] The Commission submits that the term “undertaken” ought to be synonymous with the term “Undertake to carry out” as contained in the schedule 2 Dictionary. The Tribunal notes that this interpretation includes reference to making “an offer to carry out”, in which “carry out” is further defined as to “provide building work services”. Following on, “building work services” is defined as providing “administration services” which subsequently entails “Arranging… on-site meetings and inspections”. [44] Following the necessary implications of the submissions of the Commission, the Tribunal may be satisfied that “undertaking” building work is to include the arrangement of meetings and inspections. If there exists a manifestation of an 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 be have to have occurred as a matter of fact. [45] With the material available to the Tribunal at current, I cannot determine if building works have taken place, nor should I attempt the determination on untested evidence at a summary dismissal stage. Can the application to review a decision be dismissed on the basis that it lacks merit? [46] An argument that was not pleaded in the Commission’s application to strike-out was whether the application to review was lacking in substance or merit as it had no real prospects of success. [47] As previously mentioned, upon review the Tribunal must either confirm, set aside and substitute, or remit the matter for reconsideration,17 to be exercised in accordance with the functions, powers and limitations imposed on the Commission when making the decision at first instance.18 [48] If, when making the decision the subject of this proceeding, the Commission is limited to a finding that the works have or have not been completed satisfactorily, and must issue said decision, Mr Barth’s application may lack any reasonable prospect of success. This is because the Tribunal must exercise those same powers and limitations conferred on the Commission, and Mr Barth has made concessions to the effect that the works were not completed satisfactorily within the period to comply. 17 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 24. 18 Ibid, s 19. -- 9 of 12 -- 10 [49] This issue was ventilated in Vytla v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2024] QCAT 346 (Vytla). Respectfully, the Commission’s reliance on Vytla in support of the assertion that jurisdiction has not been enlivened, this is an erroneous understanding of the Vytla decision. At paragraph [31] in Vytla, the Tribunal stated: [31] It follows, in my view, that whether the original decision was or was not properly categorised as a reviewable decision is not relevant. The decision was categorised as a reviewable decision and was the subject of an internal review. The internal review decision is a reviewable decision and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review it. It follows that the application to strike out should not be allowed on the basis the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction. That, however, is not the end of the matter. (emphasis added) [50] Further, the Tribunal stated: [34] The parties do not dispute that no rectification work was undertaken. It is settled that, in circumstances where no rectification work was ever commenced that the question of whether work undertaken at the direction of the Commission is or is not satisfactory, simply does not arise. I agree with that position. … [37] The Tribunal is limited in a review of this decision to asking whether that decision was the correct and preferable one. It is not an opportunity for the Tribunal to make a completely different type of decision unrelated to the one under review, for example, that a decision to issue a direction to rectify be made instead. [38] In this matter, the correct and preferable decision is simply to set aside the decision. No other more favourable decision, in my view, is open in this review to the applicants. [39] It follows that the review proceeding is misconceived and lacking in substance and the application to strike out should succeed. I order accordingly.19 [51] Therefore, it is apparent that the decision in Vytla could more correctly be categorised as a decision to strike-out an application on the basis that it is lacking substance and misconceived, as opposed to lack of jurisdiction. [52] According to Vytla, if “the question of whether work undertaken at the direction of the Commission is or is not satisfactory, simply does not arise,”20 then the proceeding is misconceived and lacking in substance and should be dismissed under s 47 of the QCAT Act. [53] This conclusion rests upon an assumption that in a review of a s 86(1)(f) decision, the Tribunal is limited to a finding that either the works were completed satisfactorily, or that they were not completed satisfactorily. [54] It has been well acknowledged, with respect to a section 86(1)(f) decision, that the QBCC Act, “does not provide any further guidance on the process required for making such a decision, or factors to be taken into account when making the decision.”21 This leaves the Tribunal with little statutory guidance on this form of decision. Ultimately, 19 Vytla v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2024] QCAT 346 at [31]-[39]. 20 Ibid, at [34]. 21 Jeffrey Knuth v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2024] QCAT 159 at [6]. -- 10 of 12 -- 11 ascertaining the manner in which the Commission exercises this power requires a more “hands-on” and pragmatic analysis of actual decisions made. [55] In Nazzari & Anor v Queensland Building and Construction Commission & Anor [2022] QCAT 39 (Nazzari) the decision being reviewed was a decision not to take further action regarding a direction to rectify. Ultimately, it was found that the decision was not reviewable under section 86 of the QBCC Act, however, and importantly for this matter, the Commission in that case had decided not to give the builder a “works not of a satisfactory standard” decision, despite the time for compliance with the direction to rectify having passed and no extension of time to comply with the direction being granted. [56] In Vytla, the decision under review was an internal review of a decision that “the QBCC cannot take further action in this matter,” which was made after the period for a builder to comply with a direction to rectify had expired. Included in this decision, under “why”, was: The QBCC’s ability to assist is subject to the contractor being given reasonable access, during work hours, to carry out the rectification work. The access was not granted. The Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 only allows the QBCC to direct a contractor if it fair to do so. It is not fair for the QBCC to take action against a contractor when access to the site to carry out the work has not been provided. (emphasis added) [57] Thus, if a contractor does not comply with a direction to rectify, it does not follow that the Commission will necessarily issue a ‘works not completed satisfactorily’ decision as a matter of course. [58] The Commission has been known, in the cases described above and others, to elect not to issue the decision in an arguably reasonable exercise of their statutory powers. The guidance and powers provided under the QBCC Act in issuing this decision are sufficiently vague that the overriding purpose of the Act,22 and common sense, ought to prevail. [59] For example, if a builder endeavoured to comply with a direction to rectify 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.23 [60] As the Tribunal performs all the functions of the original decision maker in order to make the correct and preferable decision,24 it is open to the Tribunal to find that the matter ought to be closed, and that the decision that works undertaken at the direction of the commission were not of a satisfactory standard should not have issued. In these 22 See Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) s 3. 23 Ibid. 24 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), ss 20(1), 19(c). -- 11 of 12 -- 12 circumstances, section 24(1)(c) of the QCAT Act permits the Tribunal to remit the decision back to the Commission for reconsideration with the instructions mentioned above. [61] It is important, however, that factors relevant to the reasonableness of issuing the decision are confined to the compliance with the direction to rectify. A review of a section 86(1)(f) decision is not an opportunity for an Applicant to relitigate the circumstances that gave rise to the issuing of the direction to rectify. In this matter, it is unclear whether the full ambit of Mr Barth’s objections to the decision have been provided in the application to review a decision filed on 24 October 2024. It is not at all uncommon for an Applicant to disclose part of their objection to the decision in their originating application, with their complete argument to follow later in the proceeding. [62] In any event, with the material available to the Tribunal at current, and considering that the Commission’s application to strike-out pleaded a different argument, it would be inappropriate for the proceeding to be struck out on this basis. Order [63] The order of the of the Tribunal is that the application for miscellaneous matters (strike-out/dismissal) filed 13 December 2024 is refused. -- 12 of 12 --