Baxter v Fiscor [2026] QCATA 121

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Baxter v Fiscor [2026] QCATA 121 PARTIES: GORDON BAXTER (applicant/appellant) v MAX FISCOR (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: APL270-24 ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S: MCDO 94/2024 (Southport) MATTER TYPE: Appeals DELIVERED ON: 29 July 2026 HEARING DATE: 29 July 2026 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Lee Benjamin ORDERS: Leave to appeal is granted. The appeal is allowed. The Tribunal’s decision in MCDO 94/2024 dated 22 July 2024 is set aside. CATCHWORDS: APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – where applicant applied for leave to appeal – where judgment on a minor debt application – whether claim was minor civil dispute or building dispute – where enabling Act conferred jurisdiction as building dispute – where error of law had effect of conferring jurisdiction when there was none ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where enabling Act defines dispute as a building dispute – where a building dispute cannot be decided as minor debt claim Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) s 75, s 77, sch 2 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 12, s 146, sch 3 24/7 Plumbing, Drainage & Gas Pty Ltd v PDM Constructions Pty Ltd [2024] QCATA 51 -- 1 of 4 -- 2 Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232 Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388 McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577 Penfold v Firkin & Balvius [2023] QCATA 11 QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41 Rothenberger Australia Pty Ltd v Poulsen (2003) 58 NSWLR 288 Siena Indiana Pty Ltd v Property Technologies Pty Ltd [2020] QCATA 79 APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicant: Self-represented Respondent: Self-represented REASONS FOR DECISION What happened? [1] In January 2024, Mr Gordon Baxter contracted with Mr Max Ficsor for the latter to undertake “make safe” patch repairs and flashing installation to a leaking roof at a Gold Coast commercial property. [2] Mr Ficsor undertook the work. He did not hold an applicable Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) licence for the same. [3] Mr Baxter says he was dissatisfied with the work and refused to pay the contract price of $4,103. [4] In February 2024, Mr Ficsor filed an application in the Tribunal’s minor civil debt jurisdiction, seeking to recover the contract price plus the filing fee. [5] In July 2024, the Tribunal heard Mr Ficsor’s application. Mr Baxter did not attend the hearing. The Tribunal decided in Mr Ficsor’s favour and ordered Mr Baxter to pay $4,256.70 to Mr Ficsor. [6] Mr Baxter has appealed the decision. What question needs to be answered? [7] The key question for the Appeal Tribunal is whether the Tribunal below had jurisdiction to hear Mr Ficsor’s application as a minor civil debt dispute. What is the answer to the question? [8] In my view, the Tribunal below did not have jurisdiction to hear Mr Ficsor’s application as a minor civil debt dispute. -- 2 of 4 -- 3 Why is this the answer to the question? [9] In summary, Mr Ficsor’s work constitutes “building work” and is therefore a “building dispute”1 and outside the Tribunal’s minor civil debt dispute jurisdiction. In other words, the Tribunal’s decision is infected by error. Mr Baxter’s application for leave to appeal must be granted. Mr Baxter’s appeal must be allowed. The Tribunal decision below is set aside. Leave to appeal [10] In determining whether to grant leave, the Appeal Tribunal must be satisfied that:2 (a) there is a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision;3 (b) there is a reasonable prospect that the appellant will obtain substantive relief;4 (c) leave is needed to correct a substantial injustice caused by some error;5 or (d) there is a question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal, would be to the public advantage.6 Characterising the dispute: building dispute or minor civil dispute – minor debt? [11] The Appeal Tribunal has observed that “there is a fundamental obligation on any court or tribunal to satisfy itself as to jurisdiction when being asked to quell controversies that come before it”.7 [12] Section 12 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act) confers the Tribunal with jurisdiction over minor civil debt disputes. A ‘minor civil dispute’ is relevantly defined as:8 1 … (a) a claim to recover a debt or liquidated demand...; 2 However, if an enabling Act confers jurisdiction on the tribunal to deal with a claim (however called) within the meaning of paragraph 1(a), the claim is not a minor civil dispute unless the enabling Act expressly states it is a minor civil dispute. [13] The effect of this is to remove a debt claim that can be characterised as both a ‘building dispute’ and a ‘minor civil dispute’ from the minor civil debt dispute jurisdiction. [14] Whilst Mr Ficsor’s claim is for a specific amount pertaining to an unpaid invoice and is therefore a liquidated demand,9 it will not be a ‘minor civil dispute’ if an enabling act also confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal to deal with it.10 1 Under the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld). 2 24/7 Plumbing, Drainage & Gas Pty Ltd v PDM Constructions Pty Ltd [2024] QCATA 51. 3 QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41. 4 Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232, 2. 5 QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41. 6 Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388, 389; McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577, 577, 580. 7 Penfold v Firkin & Balvius [2023] QCATA 11. 8 QCAT Act, Schedule 3. 9 Rothenberger Australia Pty Ltd v Poulsen (2003) 58 NSWLR 288, 297. 10 Siena Indiana Pty Ltd v Property Technologies Pty Ltd [2020] QCATA 79. -- 3 of 4 -- 4 [15] The Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (QBCC Act) vests the Tribunal with jurisdiction over a ‘building dispute’,11 relevantly, as follows:12 (a) ‘Building dispute’ relevantly includes domestic building disputes and minor commercial building disputes; (b) ‘Minor commercial building dispute’ means a commercial building dispute where neither the claim nor the counterclaim exceeds $50,000; and (c) ‘Tribunal work’ relevantly includes the renovation, alteration, extension, improvement or repair of a building,13 as well as advisory, administration, management or supervisory services relating to the tribunal work (building work services).14 [16] The QBCC Act does not expressly state that a building dispute is a minor civil dispute, therefore, building disputes are excluded from the minor civil dispute jurisdiction where the claim is for a debt or liquidated demand. [17] As Mr Ficsor’s debt claim falls within the Tribunal’s building dispute jurisdiction, it is excluded from the minor civil dispute - minor debt jurisdiction. Conclusion [18] The Tribunal cannot decide a building dispute as a minor debt in the minor civil dispute jurisdiction. The Tribunal’s decision upon the application for a minor civil dispute - minor debt is infected by error. Accordingly, Mr Baxter’s leave to appeal must be granted and the appeal be allowed. [19] In deciding the appeal on a question of law, I may make any order that I consider appropriate.15 For this purpose, I have decided to set aside the Tribunal’s decision of 22 July 2024. [20] I acknowledge that Mr Ficsor will likely see the outcome in this case as unfair. Mr Ficsor may consider bringing his dispute for unpaid monies to the attention of the QBCC. Mr Ficsor must participate in a QBCC’s dispute resolution process before making a building dispute application to the Tribunal.16 11 QBCC Act, s 77. 12 Unless referenced otherwise, all terms are defined in the QBCC Act, Schedule 2. 13 QBCC Act, s 75(1)(b). 14 QBCC Act, s 75(4) 15 QCAT Act, s 146(d). 16 QBCC Act, s 77(2). -- 4 of 4 --