Austin & Anor v One Off Projects & Anor [2018] QCAT 326
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: Austin & Anor v One Off Projects & Anor [2018] QCAT
326
PARTIES: KATE AUSTIN
(first applicant)
BRADLEY EVANS
(second applicant)
v
ONE OFF PROJECTS
(first respondent)
JON REID
(second respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S: MCDO60255-17
MATTER TYPE: Other minor civil dispute matters
DELIVERED ON: 28th September 2018
HEARING DATE: On the papers
HEARD AT: Brisbane
DECISION OF: Member Howe
ORDERS: It is confirmed that minor civil dispute MCDO60255-
17 is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE
AND TERRITORY COURTS – MOTIONS,
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS AND OTHER
PRE-TRIAL MATTERS – where building dispute
commenced as minor civil proceeding – where parties did
not comply with requirement to attempt resolution through
a process established by the Queensland Building and
Construction Commission – where no jurisdiction in the
Tribunal without that process attempted prior to
application to the Tribunal – where proceedings dismissed
because of perceived failure to comply with a time limit to
file material – where evidence was filed within time but no
sufficient evidence to establish the Tribunal’s jurisdiction
to consider the dispute between the parties
Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act
1991 (Qld), s 77(1), s 77(2)
REPRESENTATION:
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Applicants: Self-represented
Respondent: Self-represented
APPEARANCES:
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
[1] The applicants filed a minor civil dispute – minor debt application in the Tribunal
seeking recovery of the sum of $3,575 from the respondents (the applicants did not
make clear which entity or entities contracted with them) who performed some pre-
construction soil testing and preliminary site work for them in anticipation of building
them a home.
[2] The construction did not proceed and the applicants sought to recover some of the
money they had spent on the preliminary site work from the builder.
[3] The matter was listed before Justices of the Peace for hearing on 5 June 2018. The
Justices of the Peace determined that the matter was a building dispute and that it
should be more appropriately referred to the building list in the Tribunal.
[4] The matter was put before me on 11 June 2018 to consider and approve, if appropriate,
for transfer to the building list. The disagreement between the parties was clearly a
building dispute as work associated with the erection or construction of a detached
dwelling.1 There was no evidence that the parties had complied with the statutory
requirements under s 77 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission
Act 1991 (Qld).
[5] By s 77:
Tribunal may decide building dispute
(1) A person involved in a building dispute may apply, as provided under the
QCAT Act, to the tribunal to have the tribunal decide the dispute.
(2) However, the person may not apply to the tribunal unless the person has
complied with a process established by the commission to attempt to
resolve the dispute.
[6] The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider a building dispute unless s 77 has been
complied with before proceedings are commenced. Given there was no evidence that
that jurisdictional threshold had not been complied with I ordered the applicants to
file evidence of compliance within 7 days.
[7] The applicants did file evidence of the parties attempting to resolve the dispute
through a process established by the Commission, but the process was only
commenced after the proceedings had already been filed in the Tribunal which
breached the mandatory requirements of s 77(2). The evidence filed was in the form
1 Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), Schedule 2, definitions of
building dispute, domestic building dispute and reviewable domestic building work and the
definition domestic building work under Schedule 1B section 4
-- 2 of 3 --
3
of a letter dated 14 June 2018 from the Commission referring to the dispute having
been referred to the Commission on 12 June 2018. This was well after the proceedings
had been commenced and was in breach of s 77(2).
[8] Accordingly the Tribunal had, and currently has, no jurisdiction to hear the
application, whether as a minor civil dispute or as a building dispute.
[9] The matter was placed before a learned Adjudicator on 19 June 2018 for consideration
because it appeared that the applicants had failed to file any evidence about
compliance (or attempted compliance) as ordered to be done within 7 days after
11 June 2018.
[10] That was a registry error. The application was dismissed on that basis, of failure to
comply with the 7 day time limit, which was wrong. However regardless of that error
the matter cannot be reopened, as the applicants have applied for, because the problem
is a fundamental one of lack of jurisdiction in the Tribunal to determine the parties’
dispute given s 77(2) was not complied with by the applicants before commencing
proceedings.
[11] I need not address the problem that the application to review the learned Adjudicator’s
decision was a reopening application (which was wrong) rather than an appeal, which
was appropriate, because even if an appeal had been filed the outcome would have
been the same. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make orders in the dispute as it
presently stands.
[12] That having been said, and s 77(2) now complied with given the referral to the
Commission on 12 June 2018, it is open to the applicants to file a fresh application
(whether as a minor civil dispute or a building application – that is a matter for them)
and the Tribunal will, once that new proceeding is filed, then (and only then) have
jurisdiction to determine the dispute. The matter has not been litigated on its merits
but dismissed because of procedural mistake on the part of the applicants.
[13] The appropriate order at this stage is to confirm that the current proceedings
commenced as minor civil dispute MCDO60255-17 are dismissed.
-- 3 of 3 --
Official source: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QCAT/2018/326