The applicant informed the respondent that he would be overseas from 28 September 2009 to 18 December 2009. The respondent informed the applicant that due to timing and safety concerns, the inspection would occur on 6 October 2009. In the respondent's correspondence, the applicant was again informed that a representative was able to attend the inspection on the applicant's behalf.

The respondent issued a Direction to Rectify and/or Complete to the applicant subsequent to the inspection on 6 October 2009.

The respondent asserts that the applicant did not seek a review with 28 days of the Direction and no work was undertaken by the applicant as confirmed by a follow-up inspection undertaken by the respondent's representative on 6 November 2009. A notice of Failure to Rectify was sent to the applicant on that same date.

On 10 November 2009 the respondent issued a Notice of Potential Debt to the applicant and an Infringement Notice in respect of an offence against section 72(10) of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (the QBSA Act). The respondent states that the applicant sought an extension via email on or about 13 November 2009 but this was declined on the basis that the applicant had been aware of the circumstances in regard to the alleged defective work since July 2009 and has also indicated that its Principal was not leaving the country until 28 September 2009.

An application was lodged in the Tribunal on 30 August 2010 by the applicant seeking a review of the respondent's decision, number 33568-09, of 6 October 2009. On 8 September 2010 an application to extend or shorten a time limit or for waiver of compliance with procedural requirement was also lodge by the applicant.

At a directions hearing conducted by the Tribunal on 4 November 2010, the respondent was directed to file in the Tribunal and serve on the applicant any application, statement of evidence and submissions for summary disposal by 4.00pm on 9 December 2010; the applicant was directed to file in the Tribunal and serve on the respondent any submissions of evidence and submissions in response by 4.00pm on 14 January 2011. Notice was also given that the application for summary disposal would be determined on the papers by a Member of the Tribunal.

There is no submission on the Tribunal's file or record indicating that a submission was received from the respondent by 9 December 2010. A copy of the respondent's submissions is held on the file with a lodgement date of 21 December 2010. In that document, the respondent submits that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the decision.

No submission was received from the applicant.

1. Section 17 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 refers to the Tribunal's review jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal by an enabling Act to review a decision made by another entity under that Act.

2. Section 86(1)(e) of the QBSA Act provides that the Tribunal may review a decision to direct or not to direct rectification of tribunal work. Section 75 of the QBSA Act defines tribunal work as including the erection, construction, renovation, alteration, extension, improvement or repair of a building.

3. In section 86(2), however, the QBSA Act provides that certain decisions are not reviewable, as follows:

86(2) The tribunal must not review the following decisions of the authority -

(a) a decision to recover an amount under section 71;

_(b) a decision to direct rectification or completion of tribunal work by a building contractor and any finding by the authority in arriving at the decision if - _

• (i) 28 days have elapsed from the date the direction to rectify or complete was served on the building contractor and the contractor has not, within that time, applied to the tribunal for a review of the decision; and
• _(ii) the authority has - _

(A) started a disciplinary proceeding against the building contractor by an application under division 4; or

(B) served a notice on the building contractor advising a claim under the statutory insurance scheme has been approved in relation to tribunal work stated in the direction; or

(C) started a prosecution, or served an infringement notice, for an offence against section 72(10).

1. Section 61(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 provides the Tribunal with the power to extend a time limit fixed for the start of a proceeding by an enabling Act and an extension of time can be made on the application of a party or on the Tribunal's own initiative.

The decision that the applicant seeks is a review of a Direction to Rectify issued by the respondent on 6 October 2009.

Subsequent to that decision, the respondent issued a Failure to Rectify decision on 6 November 2009, a Notice of Potential Debt and an Infringement Notice for an offence against section 72(10) of the QBSA Act on 10 November 2009.

In this matter, there is some question about the date on which the applicant received the Direction to Rectify. In its application, the applicant does not explicitly state when that Direction was received. There is a notation in its application stating that a facsimile copy was received in January 2010 and an official copy was received on 3 February 2010. The respondent has provided a copy of email correspondence between a QBSA officer and the applicant dated 13 November 2009 in which the applicant seeks an extension to enable it to complete the work upon the principal's return from overseas.

There does not appear to be a substantive case of failure to apply procedural fairness in this matter and, indeed, the applicant does not state that there is. Documentation submitted by the respondent indicates that the applicant was notified of the alleged defects in its construction work as early as mid-July 2009. No submission was made to the Tribunal while the applicant was overseas despite awareness that the respondent was actively proceeding in the matter. Email correspondence between a representative of the respondent and the applicant of 13 November 2009 confirms that the applicant was aware of the respondent's actions.

The application to the Tribunal for a review of the decision was made more than 12 months after the applicant was aware of a complaint against it.

The applicant sought an extension of time in an application lodged at the Tribunal on 8 September 2010. Regardless of this, the respondent submits that the review is not permitted by section 86(2) of the QBSA Act and an approval of the extension sought would be invalid.

The issue to be determined is whether the facts of the case come within the provisions of section 86(2) of the QBSA Act, thereby denying the Tribunal jurisdiction to conduct the review of the decision. For this to occur, the Tribunal must be satisfied that 28 days elapsed between receipt of the direction to rectify or complete was served on the applicant, an application for review had not been made, and some relevant action(s) had not been taken by the respondent before the review was commenced.

The documents presented to the Tribunal confirm that 28 days had elapsed between the receipt of the Direction to Rectify and the application for review and the applicant had been served with a Notice of Potential Debt and an Infringement Notice for an offence against section 72(10) of the QBSA Act. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that actions were commenced by the respondent prior to the lodgement of the application for a review more than 28 days after the date when the Direction to Rectify was lodged with the Tribunal.

On the basis of the finding made by the Tribunal, the provisions of section 86(2) of the QBSA Act apply and the decision of the respondent made on 6 October 2009 is not a reviewable decision. Therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the decision and the application by the applicant must be dismissed.

In regard to the applicant's application to extend or shorten a time limit or for waiver of compliance with procedural requirement lodged on 8 September 2010, the Tribunal finds that this application is incorrectly lodged as it does not relate to a matter under the Tribunal's consideration.