Background
Damon Stevenson sought judicial review of several Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) decisions arising from a bathroom-renovation dispute. Cameron McGrath, trading as Rogue Bathrooms, quoted $28,000 to renovate a bathroom at a house owned by Mr Stevenson’s father. After work ceased and the contract was terminated, a claim was made under the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) insurance scheme.
QBCC initially accepted the claim in full, but QCAT reversed that outcome in September 2024, finding there was no proper building contract and therefore no valid termination enlivening insurance cover. Despite that QCAT decision, QBCC paid the claim in full and confirmed it would not seek recovery from the homeowners. QCAT later recorded the view that QBCC would be estopped from recovering the payment.
The Court’s Holding
Crow J dismissed Mr Stevenson’s applications, including his request to refer questions to the Court of Appeal under s 49 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The constitutional questions concerning QCAT’s capacity to determine matters involving Commonwealth laws did not concern the interpretation or application of the Human Rights Act and could not support a s 49 referral.
The human-rights question also was not suitable for referral. Although Mr Stevenson alleged that a refusal of LawRight assistance breached his rights under ss 15 and 31, no relevant question of law was apparent. More importantly, there was no utility in a referral because Mr Stevenson and his mother had already obtained the practical benefit of the insurance claim being paid in full.
For the same reason, the Court declined to grant certiorari. Prerogative relief under s 41(2) of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) is discretionary, and there was no practical purpose in quashing the QCAT decision where QBCC had paid the claim and would not recover the money from the homeowners.
Key Takeaways
- A s 49 Human Rights Act referral requires a genuine question about that Act’s application or interpretation.
- Constitutional arguments about QCAT’s jurisdiction did not, by themselves, justify a Human Rights Act referral.
- Judicial-review remedies may be refused where the applicant has already received the practical benefit sought and no useful relief remains.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that judicial review is not an avenue for resolving abstract or spent disputes. Even potentially substantial jurisdictional arguments may not warrant prerogative relief if a court cannot grant an order with practical utility.
It also confines the Human Rights Act referral mechanism to questions genuinely arising under that Act, rather than using it as a path to appellate consideration of unrelated constitutional issues.