Queensland Building and Construction Commission v Paris Projects Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] QDC 44

Julie Whitehead | Clare Turner | Sarah Nichols

Key takeouts

Section 71(1) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (QBCC Act) permits the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) to recover as a debt, any amount paid on a claim under the statutory insurance scheme from the building contractor through whose fault the claim arose.

A challenge to an administrative decision of the QBCC is unlikely to be decided in debt recovery proceedings under section 71(1) of the QBCC Act.

Generally, a defendant who fails to exercise its administrative review rights cannot later re-litigate such issues as a defence to debt recovery proceedings.

Background

In February 2021, Paris Projects Pty Ltd (Paris Projects) entered into a contract with homeowners to complete residential construction works. A notice of cover was issued to the homeowners, which listed Herra Group Pty Ltd (Herra) on the insurance notification form. Relevantly, Andrew Eijsvogel was a director of Herra from 10 May 2021 to 20 May 2024.

In August 2021, the QBCC cancelled Paris Projects’ construction licence. After becoming aware of the cancellation, the homeowners issued a notice of intention to terminate the contract and, given that Paris Projects did not remedy the breach, subsequently terminated the contract.

Approximately one month later, the homeowners submitted a notice of claim under the Queensland Home Warranty Scheme (Scheme) for the non-completion of works. The QBCC determined that the homeowner had validly terminated the contract and was therefore entitled to make a claim (Original Decision). Herra and Mr Eijsvogel applied for an internal review of the Original Decision, however, the Original Decision was ultimately upheld (Review Decision). Notably, neither Herra nor Mr Eijsvogel sought to have the Review Decision reviewed by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal pursuant to section 87 of the QBCC Act.

Between 15 September 2022 and 31 October 2022, the QBCC made payments totalling $201,339.77 to the homeowners pursuant to schedule 6 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld).

In March 2023, the QBCC commenced proceedings against Herra and Mr Eijsvogel under sections 71(1), 111C(3) and 111C(6) of the QBCC Act. The QBCC sought to recover the money paid out to the homeowners from Herra and Mr Eijsvogel. Mr Eijsvogel subsequently filed a defence, alleging that the homeowners breached the contract through early occupation, unlicensed works and direct payments. As a result, he contended that any payments by the QBCC under the Scheme were improper.

The QBCC sought summary judgment.

Decision

The Court held that there was no basis to refuse the application for summary judgment. Grigg DCJ was satisfied that there was no real prospect of Mr Eijsvogel defending the claim, and no need for a trial. As a result, Mr Eijsvogel was ordered to pay $243,764, including $42,424 in interest, to the QBCC.

Did the Court have inherent jurisdiction to review the Review Decision?

The Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Review Decision. The Court noted that Mr Eijsvogel had a right to have the decision reviewed by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal and chose not to exercise that right. Further, no application for judicial review under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) was ever made. The Court concluded that the availability of such rights provided a sound rationale for a legislative intention that some decisions are not justiciable in debt recovery proceedings under section 71(1) of the QBCC Act. As a result, to allow the matter to be reviewed again would go against the intention of the QBCC Act.

Could Mr Eijsvogel re-raise defences from the Review Decision as a defence to section 71(1) of the QBCC Act?

The Court found that there were no factual circumstances that could be raised as a defence. In reaching this decision, the Court noted that the debt authorised by section 71(1) is not to become ‘bedevilled by the factual convolutions’ that can emerge in court proceedings.

The Court also distinguished the facts from those in Samimi & Anor v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2015] QCA 106 (Samimi). In Samimi, the Court of Appeal found that there may be some factual circumstances which can be raised as a defence in debt recovery proceedings but confined those to circumstances where the right of recovery pertains to payments made ‘on’ claims under the insurance scheme (where those words connote a requirement that the payment be within the policy).

Further, the Court held that Mr Eijsvogel’s liability under the first limb of section 71(1) of the QBCC Act did not depend upon fault. As a result, Mr Eijsvogel was unable to challenge the legal or factual correctness of QBCC’s prior administrative decisions.

As a director of Herra, was Mr Eijsvogel liable for the debt?

The Court held that Mr Eijsvogel was liable for the debt pursuant to sections 111C(3) and 111C(6) of the QBCC Act. In reaching this decision, the Court noted that Mr Eijsvogel was a director of Herra at the time the QBCC made the payments under the Scheme. The Court also referred to section 71(2)(vi) of the QBCC Act, which provides that a ‘building contractor’ includes a licensed contractor whose licence number is stated on an insurance notification form for the construction work.

Should summary judgment be granted in favour of the QBCC?

The Court held that there was no basis to refuse the application for summary judgment. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether Mr Eijsvogel could raise a real, and not fanciful, prospect of defending the claim in whole or part. Notably, there was no evidence filed in support of Mr Eijsvogel’s allegations and submissions. The Court was also satisfied that there was no need for a trial.