Arrowsmith v True Blue Garages Pty Ltd [2026] QCAT 41

[2] Because his claim is a building dispute, Mr Arrowsmith had to comply with the early dispute resolution process before filing his application - as a building dispute.[3] He did not. This means the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the Application as a building dispute either.[4]

[3] The Application must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.[5]

Should Mr Arrowsmith be granted leave to be legally represented?

[4] Because Mr Arrowsmith's application involved complex issues of law and fact, his Application for leave to be represented is granted.[6] His claim has been determined having considered his legal representative's submissions.[7]

[5] Although 'minor civil dispute' extends to a claim arising out of a debt or liquidated demand or a contract between a consumer and trader ,[8] the definition of 'minor civil dispute' also provides:[9]

1. 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.

[6] The effect of sub-paragraph 2 is to remove a claim that can be characterised as both a 'building dispute' and a 'minor civil dispute' from the Tribunal's minor civil disputes jurisdiction. This means that the claim will not be a 'minor civil dispute' if an enabling Act also confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal to deal with it.

[7] Here, the enabling Act is the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld). Section 77 of that Act gives the Tribunal jurisdiction over a 'building dispute'. The process by which the Act confers jurisdiction is:

(a) 'Building dispute' relevantly includes a domestic building dispute;[10]

(b) 'Domestic building dispute' relevantly includes:

(i) a claim or dispute between a building owner and building contractor relating to the performance of reviewable domestic work;[11]

(ii) a claim or dispute arising between a building owner and any one or more of the following relating to the performance of reviewable domestic work or a contract for the performance of reviewable domestic work -

1. an architect;

2. an engineer;

   1. a surveyor;

   2. a quantity surveyor;

   3. an electrician or electrical contractor; or

   4. a supplier or manufacturer of materials used in the tribunal work;[12]

(c) 'Building owner' generally means a person for whom tribunal work is to be carried out but for domestic building contracts means the person for whom domestic work is to be carried out;[13]

(d) 'Domestic building contract' includes a contract to carry out domestic building work;[14]

(e) 'Domestic building work' relevantly includes the erection or construction of a building or fixture associated with a detached dwelling or home such as retaining structures, garages, carports and workshops and related site work;[15]

(f) 'Reviewable domestic work' means 'domestic building work' that relevantly includes: the erection or construction of a building or fixture associated with a detached dwelling or home such as retaining structures, garages, carports and workshops; and related site work.[16]

[8] Mr Arrowsmith claims he paid $25,890.73 to True Blue to provide drawings, specifications and engineering plans and supply materials to build a shed on his property with a dwelling.[17] His Application is therefore a 'claim' or dispute as a building owner for whom domestic work is to be carried out or a claim or dispute within the definition of 'reviewable domestic work'.[18]

[9] The supply of drawings, specifications, engineering plans and materials for a shed in these circumstances confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal without engaging the definition of 'tribunal work'.[19] Because of this, it is not relevant to consider what is not 'tribunal work'[20] - including whether the work was done outside of Queensland.[21]

[10] Because the claim is a 'building dispute', the enabling Act prescribes the procedures to be followed and, to the extent of any inconsistency between that procedure and the provisions of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), the enabling Act prevails.[22] The enabling Act required Mr Arrowsmith to file evidence of participating in early dispute resolution.[23] He has not.

[11] The early dispute resolution process is meant to provide a quick and cheap way of resolving building disputes. That is consistent with the objects of the QCAT Act to have the Tribunal deal with matters in a way that is accessible, fair, just, economical, informal and quick.[24]

[12] Because early dispute resolution is the gateway through which an applicant must pass before filing an application for a building dispute,[25] Mr Arrowsmith's non-compliance is fatal to his application:

Section 77(2) QBCC Act is expressed in clear and unequivocal terms. A person may not apply to the tribunal to decide a building dispute unless the person has complied with a process established by the QBCC to attempt to resolve the dispute. Compliance with the section is a precondition to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal being enlivened. The provision is not merely procedural, it is mandatory and has substantive effect. The Tribunal cannot exercise the powers conferred by s 61 QCAT Act to waive compliance with s 77(2) QBCC Act.[26]

[13] Senior Member Brown has previously noted the strong public policy reasons for this:

The clear intention of the legislature, by enacting s 77(2) of the QBCC Act, was to require a party seeking to pursue a claim in the tribunal in respect of a building dispute to first comply with a dispute resolution process established by the QBCC. To permit a dispute, which may be both a minor civil dispute and a building dispute, to proceed as a minor civil dispute without a party complying with s 77(2) would have the effect of frustrating the intent of the legislature.[27]

[14] It therefore does not matter that Mr Arrowsmith filed his application as a minor civil dispute - consumer / trader, or otherwise.[28] The original application was misconceived and must therefore be dismissed as lacking in jurisdiction.[29]

[6] Application for leave to be represented filed 24 November 2025.

[8] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 12(4)(b), Schedule 3.

[9] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), Schedule 3.

[10] Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), Schedule 2 (s 4).

[11] Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), Schedule 2 (s 4).

[12] Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), Schedule 2 (s 4).

[13] Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), Schedule 1B (s 1), Schedule 2 (s 4) (underlining added).

[14] Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), Schedule 1B (s 3).

[15] Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), Schedule 1B (s 4).

[16] Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), Schedule 1B (s 4), Schedule 2 (s 4).

[17] Application for minor civil dispute dated 21 August 2025 and Annexures; Submissions dated 17 November 2025.

[19] Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 75.

[20] Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 76.

[21] Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 76(n).

[22] Big4 Brisbane Northside Caravan Village v Schliebs [2012] QCAT 163, [31] (Wilson J).

[23] Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 77(2).

[24] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3(b).

[25] Walsh v Australian Building and Construction Group [2016] QCAT 187, [8], citing with approval Leyden v NJ Tierney Constructions Pty Ltd [2015] QCAT 483.

[26] Walsh v Australian Building and Construction Group [2016] QCAT 187, [12].

[27] Subramaniam & Anor v Queensland Roofing Pty Ltd & Anor [2019] QCAT 70, [12].

[28] Subramaniam & Anor v Queensland Roofing Pty Ltd & Anor [2019] QCAT 70.

[29] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 47; Walsh v Australian Building and Construction Group [2016] QCAT 187, [13].