The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal has been given almost $4 million in extra floor space, and the government says wait times are falling. For builders, the number that actually matters is 90 weeks.
That is the current wait for a first hearing in a building matter, according to figures released by the Queensland Government alongside the opening of QCAT’s expanded Brisbane premises. It is down from 123 weeks in October 2024. It is also still close to 21 months before a builder or a homeowner gets in front of a member for the first time.
What was announced
The expansion adds roughly 800 square metres to Level 8 of QCAT’s premises at 259 Queen Street in Brisbane. Five new hearing rooms and two new mediation rooms take the tribunal to 28 rooms in total. The fit out also includes a new reception area, upgraded security, and an office for LawRight, a pro bono legal service.
The opening was timed to coincide with two other events. Justice Scott McLeod commenced as QCAT President, taking over from Justice Kerri Mellifont, whose term ended on 31 July. And the statutory review of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, conducted by former QCAT President the Honourable David Thomas, reached completion.
Attorney-General Deb Frecklington said the government was investing in the tribunal’s long term capability and welcomed Justice McLeod’s appointment, while acknowledging that more work remains to be done on delays. The government also pointed to funding for an additional Supreme Court judge, the first in eight years.
The physical constraint being addressed here is real, and QCAT has said so itself. Its 2024-25 annual report noted that a shortage of hearing rooms meant proceedings were sometimes held at the Land Court, Supreme Court and District Court premises, by arrangement with those jurisdictions. The same report described work already underway to reconfigure accommodation and create additional hearing rooms, on the basis that more rooms would allow more hearings to be scheduled and more matters finalised.
So the expansion is not window dressing. It responds to a documented capacity problem.
Where building matters sit in the numbers
The government released wait time movements across five categories, measured from 31 October 2024 to 30 June 2026. All five improved. Building matters improved the least.
| Category | Oct 2024 | Jun 2026 | Reduction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Building matters | 123 weeks | 90 weeks | 27% |
| Retail shop leases | 143 weeks | 57 weeks | 60% |
| Neighbourhood disputes | 169 weeks | 90 weeks | 47% |
| Other civil disputes | 158 weeks | 33 weeks | 79% |
| Guardianship | 35 weeks | 23 weeks | 34% |
Weeks to a first hearing. Source: Queensland Government figures, 31 October 2024 to 30 June 2026.
Other civil disputes fell by nearly four fifths. Retail shop leases dropped by more than half. Building matters moved by just over a quarter, and now sit level with neighbourhood disputes as the longest waits on the published list.
There is a second gap worth noting. The government also published figures on how long matters take to finalise, which is the number that determines when a dispute is actually over. Four categories appear in that list: retail shop leases, child protection, other civil disputes and guardianship. Building matters do not appear.
That absence is not proof that building finalisation times have gone backwards. It does mean no published figure was offered for the category that matters most to this industry, in an announcement built around a category by category comparison.
What QCAT’s own reporting shows
QCAT’s most recently published annual report, covering 2024-25, gives a partial view of the same period. It is an interim snapshot rather than a contradiction, because it stops at 30 June 2025 while the government’s figures run to 30 June 2026. The 2025-26 report has not yet been published.
On the building list, that report recorded:
- 446 building dispute lodgements in 2024-25, down 3 per cent on the previous year
- A clearance rate of 80 per cent, down 2 percentage points
- 633 building matters pending at 30 June 2025, up 16 per cent on the year before
A clearance rate below 100 per cent means the tribunal finalised fewer building matters than it received. Fewer applications came in, and the backlog still grew by 16 per cent. QCAT also noted that the three per cent dip in lodgements should be read against an 18 per cent increase between 2021-22 and 2024-25.
The annual report identifies another pressure that hearing rooms alone will not fix. Interlocutory applications, the procedural skirmishes that happen before a matter is heard, rose six per cent across civil and administrative matters to 10,345. QCAT was direct about the effect, linking increases in these applications to longer times to finalisation and lower clearance rates.
Rooms create hearing capacity. They do not reduce the number of interlocutory applications, and they do not by themselves add members to sit in the rooms.
The 90 weeks is not the whole clock
For builders, the published wait understates the timeline in a specific way.
Under section 77(2) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991, a party cannot apply to QCAT to decide a building dispute unless they have first complied with a dispute resolution process established by the QBCC. QCAT requires a letter from the QBCC confirming the outcome of that process, or confirming that no process applies, at the time of lodgement. Applications filed without it can be refused or dismissed.
That means the clock a builder experiences starts at the QBCC complaint, not at the QCAT filing. The 90 weeks sits on top of however long the QBCC stage takes.
There is also the question of who is in the room. In QCAT, the default position under section 43 of the QCAT Act is that parties represent themselves. Legal representation in a building dispute requires leave from the tribunal, granted at its discretion, with factors including whether the matter involves complex questions of fact or law and whether the other party is represented. A builder facing a contested defect claim cannot assume a lawyer will be permitted to appear.
The new LawRight office sits inside this picture, but not as a resource most builders can use. LawRight assists people who cannot afford private legal help and who are not eligible for legal aid. A licensed builder running a business is unlikely to meet that test.
The review is the bigger story
The expansion is infrastructure. The Thomas review is the item with the potential to change how building disputes actually run.
The terms of reference, published by the Department of Justice, go well beyond hearing room space. They ask the reviewer to examine whether the current legislation creates obstacles to procedural efficiency, whether legal representation should be available as of right for some or all types of matters, whether the minor civil dispute jurisdiction should be expanded, reduced or moved elsewhere, and how QCAT can be improved to support the small business community. Capacity, including available members and physical hearing space, is one item on that list rather than the whole of it.
Two of those items have direct commercial consequences for builders. A change to representation as of right would alter the cost and risk profile of every contested building matter. A change to the small business posture of the tribunal would affect the businesses that make up most of the residential sector.
The report was due to the Attorney-General by 31 July 2026 and must be tabled in Parliament. The government has said the findings will be closely considered. At the time of writing, the report had not appeared on the Department of Justice review page alongside the earlier background and issues papers.
So the recommendations that could reshape building dispute practice in Queensland exist, and the industry has not seen them yet.
What this changes for a builder deciding what to do
A 90 week wait for a first hearing is a commercial fact before it is a legal one. It sets the value of settling, and it sets the value of avoiding the dispute in the first place.
At that timeline, a disputed retention sum or a contested variation carries close to two years of uncertainty on the balance sheet before a member hears the matter, plus the QBCC stage before it. Insurers, financiers and any party conducting due diligence will see an unresolved proceeding for that whole period.
For payment disputes specifically, adjudication under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 runs on a statutory timetable measured in weeks rather than years, and operates separately from QCAT. It is strict on process and timing, and it does not cover every kind of claim, but the difference in speed is substantial. Notably, QCAT cannot review an adjudicator’s decision made under that Act.
The tribunal’s own numbers also make the documentation point without needing to argue it. A matter that turns on what was agreed verbally on site will take longer to resolve and cost more to run than one where the contract, the variations and the site records answer the question.
Where this lands
Five hearing rooms and 800 square metres are a real addition to a tribunal that had been holding hearings in other jurisdictions’ buildings because it ran out of its own. The direction of the wait time numbers is real too.
But building matters improved the least of the five categories published, they now sit at the top of the published waits alongside neighbourhood disputes, they were left out of the finalisation figures entirely, and the last published annual report showed the building backlog growing while lodgements fell.
For Queensland builders, the useful takeaway is not the ribbon cutting. It is that the tribunal remains a slow and expensive place to end up, that the QBCC stage sits in front of it, and that the review capable of changing any of that has been delivered but not yet released.
The rooms are the announcement. The report is the story.
Frequently asked questions
According to Queensland Government figures covering 31 October 2024 to 30 June 2026, the wait for a first hearing in a building matter is 90 weeks, down from 123 weeks. That is roughly 21 months, and it does not include time spent in the QBCC dispute resolution process beforehand.
Yes. Section 77(2) of the QBCC Act requires a party to comply with a QBCC dispute resolution process before applying to QCAT to decide a building dispute. QCAT requires a letter from the QBCC confirming the outcome, or confirming that no process applies, when the application is filed. Applications lodged without it can be refused or dismissed.
Not automatically. Section 43 of the QCAT Act starts from the position that parties represent themselves. For a building dispute, legal representation requires leave from the tribunal. The tribunal may consider whether the matter involves complex questions of fact or law, whether another party is represented, and whether all parties agree.
It is the statutory review of the QCAT Act, conducted by the Honourable David Thomas and due to the Attorney-General by 31 July 2026. The terms of reference cover procedural efficiency, whether legal representation should be available as of right, the scope of the minor civil dispute jurisdiction, support for small business, and tribunal capacity. The report must be tabled in Parliament.
For payment claims, adjudication under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 runs on a statutory timetable measured in weeks and sits outside QCAT. It is strict on process and timing and does not cover every type of claim. QCAT cannot review an adjudicator’s decision made under that Act.
This article provides general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Tribunal wait times, dispute resolution requirements and statutory processes change over time and vary by jurisdiction. Builders should confirm current procedures with the QBCC and QCAT, and seek advice specific to their dispute, before acting.
Sources: Queensland Government media statement; QCAT Annual Report 2024-25; Queensland Department of Justice, QCAT Act review 2025-26 terms of reference; Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 s 77; Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 43; LawRight Court and Tribunal Services.
Author: TGB Editorial
0 Comments