//
[2026] QCAT 91
General information, not legal advice.
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal
2026-02-23
Original judgment source is linked above.
Repine v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2026] QCAT 91
QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION
(a) an amended written statement of reasons; and
(b) an indexed and sequentially numbered bundle in date or other logical order of the documents and other material in its possession or under its control that may be relevant to the Tribunal's review of the decision, by: 4:00pm on 30 October 2025.
(a) contain statements of all witnesses;
(b) each witness statement must have attached to it all relevant documents with an explanation in the statement as to how they are relevant; and
(c) all attachments must be sequentially page numbered and must be referred to in the statements, by: 4:00pm on 30 January 2026.
(a) contain statements of all witnesses;
(b) each witness statement must have attached to it all relevant documents with an explanation in the statement as to how they are relevant; and
(c) all attachments must be sequentially page numbered and must be referred to in the statements, by: 4:00pm on 13 March 2026.
(a) Whether the applications for review can be decided on the papers, without an oral hearing (no witnesses cross-examined); OR
(b) Whether the applications for review should be decided by way of an oral hearing, in which case the Tribunal must also be informed by each party (or by a joint submission);
(i) Whether the format of the hearing should be in-person or by remote attendance (video conferencing), and
(ii) The number of half-days or days estimated to be required for the hearing having regard to the number of witnesses expected to be the subject of cross-examination, and
(iii) The dates that each party, its representatives and witnesses are not available to attend a hearing listed between 13 May 2026 and 13 May 2027, by: 4:00pm on 21 April 2026.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS - QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL - where applicant applied for consolidation of matters - where applicant sought order as to costs - where applicant withdrew consent for leave to be legally represented - where applicant subsequently opposed a grant of leave to be legally represented - where no order as to costs - where leave to be legally represented granted - where consolidation refused and matters to be heard and determined together - whether application lacks merit.
Body Corporate for Alto Gladstone v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2020] QCATA 6
Chaudhary v Medical Board of Queensland [2012] QCAT 172
Robinson v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QCAT 39
[1] The Queensland Building and Construction Commission (Commission) sought leave to be legally represented in review proceedings filed by Mr Nikolai Repine. Mr Repine initially consented to the same. Later, Mr Repine opposed the Commission's application to the extent that the Commission was represented by HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (HWLE) because Mr Repine is dissatisfied with HWLE. The question for the Tribunal is whether it is in the "interests of justice" for the Commission to the represented in these proceedings. In my view (and I find that), the answer to this question is yes.
[2] Separately, Mr Repine sought: (i) to consolidate two review applications into one proceeding; and (ii) a costs order in relation to the same. The question for the Tribunal is whether it ought to exercise its discretion to grant these applications. In my view (and I find that), the answer to this question is no.
[3] On 21 July 2025, Mr Repine filed an application in the Tribunal to review a Commission decision to not give a direction to rectify for two complaint items (proceeding GAR465-25).
[4] On 30 July 2025, Mr Repine filed an application in the Tribunal to review a Commission decision to disallow a claim for assistance under the Queensland Home Warranty Scheme (proceeding GAR622-25).
[5] On 6 August 2025, Mr Repine filed an interlocutory application for (1) proceedings GAR465-25 and GAR622-25 to be consolidated into one proceeding; and (2) order that the Commission pay Mr Repine's costs in respect of (i) his interlocutory application for consolidation; and (ii) the costs of one of the proceedings before consolidation.[1] Mr Repine's application was accompanied by brief submissions in support of the same.
[6] On 8 August 2025, the Tribunal issued directions requiring, among other things:
(a) Mr Repine to file his review application to the Commission;
(b) the Commission to serve the review application on affected parties; and
(c) the commission to file its statement of reasons.
[7] On 3 September 2025, HWLE filed an interlocutory application for leave for the Commission to be legally represented in the proceedings. The Commission's application was accompanied by submissions in support of the same.
[8] On 8 September 2025, Mr Repine wrote to the Tribunal and HWLE to indicate that he consented to the Commission being granted leave to be represented. Mr Repine also indicated that he did not intend to make submissions on the Commission's application.
[9] On 8 September 2025, Mr Repine filed submissions in support of his 6 August 2025 interlocutory application for consolidation and costs.
[10] On 13 October 2025, Mr Repine filed submissions on what he described as the Commission's "unlawful complaint form and ultra vires decisions".
[11] On 13 October 2025, Mr Repine filed comprehensive submissions on what he described as "on the applicability of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth); the [Commission's] duty of utmost good faith; and the duties of the [Commission] and its counsel in these proceedings.
[12] On 16 October 2025, Mr Repine filed supplementary submissions in support of his 6 August 2025 interlocutory application for consolidation and costs.
[13] On 21 October 2025, the Tribunal made directions advising the parties of the Directions Hearing scheduled for 5 November 2025, and requiring, among other things:
[14] On 24 October 2025, Mr Repine filed further submissions in response to the Commission's 3 September 2025 interlocutory application for leave for the Commission to be legally represented. Mr Repine again confirmed his consent to the Commission being granted leave to the represented.
[15] On 27 October 2025, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Directions Hearing to the parties advising the date and time[2] for the Directions Hearing. The notice included the following notes:
This is a hearing to make directions about the conduct of your matter, including:
(a) deciding whether there should be a mediation or compulsory conference,
(b) deciding the procedures and timeframes for preparing and lodging evidence (e.g. statements and documents) ready for a hearing, and
(c) dealing with any preliminary or interim issues raised by the parties.
[16] On 4 November 2025, HWLE filed submissions in response to Mr Repine's submissions on his 6 August 2025 interlocutory application for consolidation and costs. The Commission contended that (1) any cost order is inappropriate and ought not be granted; and (2) it may be appropriate for the Tribunal to direct that proceedings GAR465-25 and GAR622-25 remain as separate proceedings but be heard and decided together.
[17] On 5 November 2025, Mr Repine filed submissions on what he described as "misconduct of the [HWLE]". In the same, Mr Repine makes a series of allegations against HWLE and contends, among other things, that HWLE's "participation [in the proceedings] will unduly prejudice him." Mr Repine indicated that he now opposed the Commission's 3 September 2025 leave to represented interlocutory application so long as HWLE was involved. At the same time, Mr Repine undertook not to object to the Commission seeking leave to be represented by another firm of solicitors.
[18] On 5 November 2025, Mr Repine filed what he described as his "memorandum" for the 5 November 2025 Directions Hearing. In the same, Mr Repine sets out, for the Tribunal's attention, "the matters that, in his view, ought to be addressed...at the Directions Hearing." Mr Repine requests, among other things, that (1) his 6 August 2025 interlocutory application for consolidation and costs and (2) the Commission's 3 September 2025 leave to represented interlocutory application, be considered in the Directions Hearing.
[19] On 5 November 2025, I presided in a Directions Hearing in GAR465-25. Mr Repine appeared, as did a Solicitor from HWLE for the Commission.[3] During the same, I heard submissions about, and decided, among other things, the 6 August 2025 interlocutory application for consolidation and costs and the 3 September 2025 leave to represented interlocutory application.
[20] On 5 November 2025, the Tribunal issued its written decision in, among other things, the 6 August 2025 interlocutory application for consolidation and costs and the 3 September 2025 leave to represented interlocutory application:
(a) All parties were granted leave to be legally represented in the proceeding;
(b) The proceedings were to be heard and determined together but remain separate proceedings; and
(c) The costs application was refused.
[21] In accordance with section 122(2) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act), a party to a proceeding may, within 14 days after the Tribunal's decision takes effect, request reasons for a decision. The Tribunal has a long-standing process for parties to request such written reasons. Details for that process are available on the Tribunal's public website.[4] Relevantly, the internet page provides:
Please note that ALL requests for reasons must be made through the QTranscripts online platform and this product type in QTranscripts does not incur a fee.
Please note that all requests must undergo an internal approval process. This may affect the requested turnaround time as the turnaround time does not commence until after the internal process is completed.
[22] Although Mr Repine does not appear to have duly made a request for written reasons in accordance with the procedure set out above, I have prepared reasons for my decisions in (i) the Commission's 3 September 2025 leave to be represented interlocutory application; and (ii) Mr Repine's 6 August 2025 consolidation and costs interlocutory application. Under section 122(4) of the QCAT Act, the Tribunal is not required to provide written reasons for a decision made under, among other provisions, section 54(1) (dealing with consolidation) and section 55(1) (dealing with sequencing). However, I have included reasons for my decision in Mr Repine's 6 August 2025 consolidation and costs interlocutory application insofar as it relates to consolidation for his information.
What questions need to be answered and what are the answers to the questions?
[23] In relation to the Commission's 3 September 2025 leave to be represented interlocutory application, the question before the Tribunal is: is it in the "interests of justice" for the Commission to be granted leave to be legally represented in the proceeding? In my view (and I find) the answer is yes.
[24] In relation to Mr Repine's 6 August 2025 interlocutory application for consolidation and costs, the question before the Tribunal is: should the Tribunal exercise its discretion to grant a costs order? In my view (and I find), the answer is no.
[25] Before addressing why the Tribunal has arrived it its decisions, I need to say something about the conduct of the interlocutory applications. As is apparent from the course of events set out above, the parties have availed themselves of opportunities to file multiple written submissions about the applications. The parties were also provided with the opportunity to advance their positions in oral submissions at the directions hearing on 5 November 2025. On these bases, I was able to make the decisions, in what are straight forward applications, in accordance with the objects of the QCAT Act.
Application for leave to be legally represented
[26] Section 43 of the QCAT Act addresses the issue of legal representation, while Section 53 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Rules) deals with how "State agencies" may be represented in Tribunal proceedings.
[27] The Tribunal may exercise its discretion to allow legal representation if the "interests of justice" require the Tribunal to make the order. In its 3 September 2025 leave to be represented interlocutory application, the Commission contended that:
(a) the Commission is a state agency; and
(b) the proceeding involves complex questions of fact and law.
[28] The Commission submits, and I accept, that its position as a state agency is a matter which supports the granting of leave for the Commission to be legally represented in the proceeding. The Commission has dual obligations as a model litigant and to assist the Tribunal to arrive at the correct and preferable decision. As a practical matter, this requires the Commission to present comprehensive evidence, even where not supportive of the Commission's position.
[29] In Robinson v Queensland Building Services Authority,[5] Senior Member Oliver noted that the explicit mention of "State agency" as a factor indicated that the Legislature saw fit to place state agencies in a "category requiring special consideration." I am minded to agree with Senior Member Oliver's view, that having State agencies represented in proceedings is, more often than not, in the interests of justice. This is particularly evident in matters where the State agency must conform to model litigant principles, as is the case in this proceeding.[6]
[30] The decision being reviewed in this matter is a combination of a Direction to Rectify for certain items and a decision not to give a Direction to Rectify for certain items. The review of the decision may involve an analysis and require understanding of multiple Acts, Regulations and Rules, including:
(a) the Queensland Building and Construction Act 1991 (Qld) (QBCC Act); and
(b) the Queensland Building and Construction Regulation 2018 (Qld); and
(c) the QCAT Act; and
(d) the QCAT Rules.
[31] The Commission submits, and I accept, that in assisting the Tribunal to arrive at the correct and preferable decision, the Tribunal would benefit from the participation of a legal representative who is familiar with the statutory framework and can provide objective and dispassionate representation in the proceeding about the same.
[32] Overall, I am persuaded that it is in the interests of justice for the Commission to be granted leave to be legally represented. Put another way, I can see no injustice to Mr Repine that would be caused by Commission being granted leave to be legally represented. As a self represented party, I suspect Mr Repine will, ultimately, be assisted by the Commission being legally represented in these proceedings.
[33] As already indicated, Mr Repine, although initially consenting to the Commission being granted leave for legal representation, later opposed the application to the extent that the Commission is represented by HWLE. Mr Repine says that he undertakes not to object to the Commission seeking leave to be represented by firm other than HWLE.
[34] Mr Repine particularised his objection to HWLE in the following submissions:
(a) HWLE are either unscrupulous or lack the requisite competence and diligence;
(b) HWLE's participation will not assist the Tribunal in reaching the correct and preferable decision;
(c) HWLE's participation will unduly prejudice a self-represented applicant;
(d) given that HWLE's conduct is now in issue in relation to costs, counsel would be acting under a conflict of interest, contrary to their paramount duty to the court and to the proper administration of justice; and
(e) HWLE's submissions, which assert that the complexity of this proceeding is no different from any other matter, directly contradicts earlier submissions, which state that this proceeding "involves complex issues of fact and law", accordingly, the basis for granting leave necessarily collapses.
[35] With due respect to Mr Repine, these kinds of submissions are lamentable. First, it is not for Mr Repine to say which law firm will represent another party in litigation. That is a matter solely for the other party. Second, while it is not for me to adjudicate Mr Repine's allegations about HWLE's conduct, competence and conflicts, what I will say is that, based on what I have seen, there does not appear to be any basis for Mr Repine's allegations. Third, given my finding above, I see no prejudice to Mr Repine from the Commission having legal representation in this matter (rather, quite the contrary) and it is, as I have already said, a matter for the Commission as to who represents them. Fourth, I do not see a contradiction in the Commission's submissions that, on one hand, the complexity of this proceeding is no different from any other matter with, on the other hand, this proceeding involves complex issues of fact and law. While Mr Repine's substantive review applications are not in any unusual, they appear to involve complex issues of fact and law.
[36] Mr Repine's 6 August 2025 consolidation and costs interlocutory application seeks (1) proceedings GAR465-25 and GAR622-25 to be consolidated into one proceeding; and (2) an order that the Commission pay Mr Repine's costs in respect of (i) his interlocutory application for consolidation, and (ii) the costs of one of the proceedings before consolidation.
[37] Mr Repine's application stated, among other things, that the grounds for the consolidation application were:
(a) the Commission has acted unlawfully in effectively multiplying administrative and legal proceedings without a good reason;
(b) the consolidation is necessary to achieve the objectives of the QCAT Act and the QBCC Act;
(c) the proceedings concern the same facts and circumstances;
(d) the continuation of the separate proceedings would be oppressive towards the Mr Repine and otherwise contrary to the interests of justice;
(e) the issues raised in this application are of general importance in respect of the process of making applications to the Commission and the Tribunal.
[38] The Tribunal's power to consolidate proceedings is contained within section 54 of the QCAT Act:
(1) The tribunal may direct that 2 or more proceedings concerning the same or related facts and circumstances be consolidated into 1 proceeding.
(2) The tribunal's power to give a direction under subsection (1) is exercisable only by a legally qualified member or adjudicator.
(3) If 2 or more proceedings (each a pre-consolidation proceeding) are consolidated under subsection (1), evidence given in a pre-consolidated proceeding may also be given in the consolidated proceeding in relation to each of the other pre-consolidated proceedings.
[39] The Tribunal frequently considers consolidation applications. In Body Corporate for Alto Gladstone v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[7] (Alto Gladstone), Senior Member Howard provided a detailed examination into the application of the provision allowing a party to consolidate multiple proceedings that relate to different reviewable decisions. Senior Member Howard found:
[73] I am satisfied that there are compelling reasons to conclude that a reviewable decision which may be the subject of a review application by QCAT pursuant to the statutory scheme, is to be read as a matter of statutory construction, in the singular and that separate review application is required to be filed in respect of each decision the subject of a review application. The application of s 32C(a) of the AI Act is displaced by contrary intention in the circumstances in the QCAT Act.
[74] For the reasons discussed, I find that the QCAT Act requires that a separate review application is to be filed in respect of each decision sought to be reviewed, and a separate application for extension of time is required in respect of each reviewable decision that is made outside of the statutory time limit.
[40] Senior Member Howard's approach has been adopted throughout the Tribunal in its review jurisdictions. Respectfully, Mr Repine submissions are not probative enough as to displace this approach. I am minded to agree with Senior Member Howard's findings in Alto Gladstone. Accordingly, the application, as it pertains consolidation, is refused.
[41] The Commission contends that sequencing proceedings GAR465-25 and GAR622-25 may be appropriate under section 55(1)(a) of the QCAT Act, which relevantly states:
(1) The tribunal may direct that 2 or more proceedings concerning the same or related facts and circumstances-
(a) remain as separate proceeding but be heard and determined together;
...
[42] Section 55(1)(a) of the QCAT Act can be employed to provide for a procedural outcome that is not substantively different from consolidation, where the proceedings traverse through the Tribunal together and are heard concurrently. Thus, I order that the proceedings remain separate proceedings but be heard and determined together.
[43] Mr Repine's application contended, among other things, that the grounds for the costs application were:
(a) the Commission has acted vexatiously and oppressively in effectively multiplying administrative and legal proceedings without a good reason;
(b) the Commission, as the decision-maker, has failed to afford natural justice to the Applicant in respect to the issue of unlawful multiplication of the proceedings by the Commission;
(c) Mr Repine genuinely attempted to enable and help the Commission, as the decision-maker, to make the decision on the issue of unlawful multiplication of the proceedings by the Commission;
(d) the financial circumstances of the Commission - a government agency and statutory body under the Financial Accountability Act 2009 (Qld) with its own "legal branch" - are much more favourable than those of a self represented consumer; and
(e) a cost order would deter the Commission from unlawful conduct in the future.
[44] As is clear in Mr Repine's submissions, the Commission's conduct in requiring Mr Repine to file a further application to review is the central basis for requesting costs. Such a suggestion from the Commission was simply the approach as adopted by the Tribunal according to the reasoning in Alto Gladstone. In my view, this conduct should not be regarded as 'vexatious' or 'oppressive'.
[45] Accordingly, the application, as it pertains to costs, is refused.
[1] On 14 August 2025, the Tribunal directed Mr Repine to refile his interlocutory application on the approved Form 40, together with supporting submissions.
[2] The Notice of Directions Hearings states that "the tribunal has listed several applications for directions hearings at the above time. This means your case may not proceed precisely at the time indicated. As all parties are participating by telephone you will need to be available to be contacted at the telephone number specified or provided for approximately one hour following the time indicated above."
[3] I granted leave for the Commission to be legally represented for the Directions Hearing on 5 November 2025.
[4] Which may be found at https://www.qcat.qld.gov.au/resources/request-reasons-for-a-decision.
[5] [2010] QCAT 39, [17].
[6] Chaudhary v Medical Board of Queensland [2012] QCAT 172, [6]-[7].
Repine
Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2026] QCAT 91