Anderson v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2025] QCAT 372

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Anderson v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2025] QCAT 372 PARTIES: ROWAN ANDERSON (applicant) v QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: GAR420-25 MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters DECISION ON: 18 September 2025 REASONS ON: 30 September 2025 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Lee Benjamin ORDERS: Pursuant to s 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), the application to review a decision filed 1 July 2025 is dismissed. CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where application to review Queensland Building and Construction Commission decision – whether decision is reviewable – where review jurisdiction not enlivened – whether application should be dismissed Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 18, s 24, s 47 Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) s 86, s 86A, s 86B, s 86C, s 86E, s 87 Simons & Ors v Dowd Lawyers Pty Ltd [2020] QCAT 348 Strike Development Projects Pty Ltd v Michael Peter Fitzpatrick t/as MF Professional Painting [2022] QCAT 40 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) Applicant: Roman & Romans Lawyers Respondent: In-house -- 1 of 4 -- 2 REASONS FOR DECISION What is this decision about? [1] On 1 July 2025, Rowan Anderson, the applicant, filed an application in the Tribunal to review a Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) decision, refusing to accept an internal review application dated 3 June 2025. The question for me is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the application. In my view the answer is no and the application must be dismissed. What happened? [2] On 3 June 2025, the QBCC issued a decision entitled, “Applicant – Internal Review Application REF#2849248 – Out of Time Declined.” It is undisputed and incontestable that this is the decision Mr Anderson sought to review in the proceeding: (a) this was the only decision annexed to the application to review a decision filed 1 July 2025; (b) in the application to review a decision, Mr Anderson stated that the decision to be reviewed was made and received on 3 June 2025 – the date the aforementioned decision was issued; and (c) when prompted as to why the decision was wrong or not properly made, Mr Anderson stated: “The decision Maker incorrectly applied section 86B(b)(i) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 in deciding that the Internal Review Application was made out of time.”1 [3] On 1 July 2025, Mr Anderson filed his review application with the Tribunal. [4] On 25 July 2025, the Tribunal directed the parties to file and serve submissions on whether Mr Anderson’s application should be dismissed under s 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act). The Tribunal adopted this course because the QBCC’s decision did not appear to be reviewable under s 86E of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (QBCC Act). [5] On 8 August 2025, Mr Anderson filed his submissions. On 26 August 2025, the QBCC filed its submissions. What does the law say? [6] The Tribunal’s review jurisdiction is enlivened under s 18 of the QCAT Act, when: a person has, under this Act, applied to the tribunal to exercise its review jurisdiction for a reviewable decision. [7] Under s 24 of the QCAT Act, in a review proceeding of a reviewable decision, the Tribunal may: (a) confirm or amend the decision; or 1 The Applicant’s application to review a decision filed on 1 July 2025, p 4. -- 2 of 4 -- 3 (b) set aside the decision and substitute its own decision; or (c) set aside the decision and return the matter for reconsideration to the decision-maker for the decision, with the directions the tribunal considers appropriate. [8] Section 87 of the QBCC Act provides 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. [9] Section 86E outlines the definitions for the purposes of Schedule 2, being ‘External reviews’. Section 86E of the QBCC Act relevantly states that a ‘reviewable decision’ is either a reviewable decision within the meaning of subdivision 1, or an internal review within the meaning of subdivision 1. The reviewable decisions within the meaning of subdivision 1 are contained within s 86 of the QBCC Act. Internal review decisions, for the purposes of subdivision 1, are governed by ss 86A, 86B and 86C of the QBCC Act. [10] Section 47 of the QCAT Act permits the Tribunal to dismiss or strike out an application if it is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived, lacking in substance, or otherwise an abuse of process.2 In Simons & Ors v Dowd Lawyers Pty Ltd,3 Judicial Member, the Hon Peter Lyons QC, discussed s 47 of the QCAT Act, stating that: …the expressions ‘frivolous, vexatious or misconceived’ suggest a high threshold must be crossed before the Tribunal can exercise its powers under this section. [11] The Hon Peter Lyons QC then drew comparisons between this provision and that of rr 292 and 293 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR), in which it was stated that it is a: …well established principle that issues raised in proceedings will be determined summarily only in the clearest of cases.4 [12] In Strike Development Projects Pty Ltd v Michael Peter Fitzpatrick t/as MF Professional Painting [2022] QCAT 40, Senior Member Brown stated: Where the tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide a matter the proceeding may be said to be misconceived or lacking in substance. In such circumstances, the tribunal may dismiss the proceeding. [13] The bottom line is that where the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review a decision, the Tribunal may dismiss the application seeking review of the same. Why is the application dismissed? [14] The issue before me is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and decide the application to review a decision. This jurisdiction is only enlivened when the decision under review is either an internal review decision within the meaning of subdivision 1 of the QBCC Act, or a decision as set out in s 86 of the QBCC Act.5 2 QCAT Act, s 47(1)(a)-(c). 3 [2020] QCAT 348. 4 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. 5 QBCC Act, s 86E. -- 3 of 4 -- 4 [15] Given the title, form and substance of the decision, I am not satisfied that the decision is reviewable by the Tribunal as an internal review decision within the meaning of subdivision 1.6 An internal review must, “make a new decision as if the reviewable decision had not been made.”7 The QBCC’s decision dated 3 June 2025 made no such decision. The only QBCC decision capable of being ascertained in the email dated 3 June 2025, was a decision not to give an internal review decision because it was deemed to be filed after the 28-day statutory time limit had expired.8 Whether the QBCC correctly exercised its jurisdiction on internal review is irrelevant for this Tribunal, with such a question arguably more suitable for a judicial review inquiry. [16] Furthermore, a QBCC decision to not extend the time for the Applicant to file the application to internally review the decision9 is not a reviewable decision under s 86 of the QBCC Act. [17] Mr Anderson contends: The Internal Review Application related to a review of the respondent’s decision under section 86(1)(k)(i) of the QBCC Act, specifically in relation to the respondent’s decision that the applicant was an excluded individual arising from the second event.10 In those circumstances, the Application to Review relates to a reviewable decision under section 86E of the QBCC Act and the applicant says the Application to Review ought not be dismissed for futility. [18] With due respect to Mr Anderson, his submission misconstrues the Tribunal’s review jurisdiction. In my view, there is nothing in s 86E of the QBCC Act to suggest that a decision’s reviewability derives from the degree to which it relates to a decision contained within subdivision 1 of the QBCC Act. The decision under review must itself be a reviewable decision within the meaning of subdivision 1, as contained in s 86, or an internal review decision within the meaning of subdivision 1. In my view, this decision is neither. [19] As such, I find that the Tribunal’s review jurisdiction is not enlivened under to s 18 of the QCAT Act and there is no utility in the review. Order [20] The order is as follows: (a) Pursuant to s 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), the application to review a decision filed 1 July 2025 is dismissed. 6 As provided for in s 86E of the QBCC Act. 7 See s 86C(1) of the QBCC Act. 8 QBCC Act, s 86B. 9 As permitted under to s 86B(b)(ii) of the QBCC Act. 10 Applicant’s submissions, para 17. -- 4 of 4 --