Two-year delay sinks owner’s appeal against council building and plumbing orders (TASCAT, 2026)

What happened

A company, acting as trustee of a trust, owns a cottage at Tunnel in northern Tasmania. Under the Building Act 2016 the Launceston City Council and its officers have regulatory duties about building and plumbing work. A council delegate (an officer given the council's power to act) was concerned that the cottage did not have building or plumbing approval under that Act. On 4 July 2024 the delegate issued two orders: a plumbing order and a building order. Each order said on its face that the owner could appeal to the Tribunal.

The council and the owner then exchanged letters over about a month. Rather than appeal, the owner took steps to get a temporary occupancy permit from a private building surveyor so it could keep using the cottage. On 7 August 2024 the owner said it was progressing that temporary permit. The Tribunal found that nothing further of substance happened after that until the two appeals were filed in June 2026 (the reasons refer to both 22 and 26 June 2026 as the filing date).

The appeal period was 14 days from the issue of each order, so it expired on 18 July 2024. The appeals were therefore around two years late. The owner, a company, was self-represented through the person the Tribunal described as its controlling mind. He said he had misunderstood how to appeal, had faced personal and financial difficulties over the past two years, and that the matter was complex. He also said the council knew he wanted to challenge the orders.

There were also disputed allegations, including that the council had lost some records in a fire. The Tribunal said it did not need to decide that or similar questions to deal with the extension application.

What each side wanted

The owner asked the Tribunal to extend the time for filing both appeals, arguing that its delay was explained by a misunderstanding of the appeal process, personal and financial difficulties, and the complexity of the matter, and that its appeals had strong prospects of success. The council opposed the extension, arguing that the complexity of the matter did not account for a delay of that size, that the steps the owner had taken were consistent with trying to comply with the orders rather than challenge them, and that the orders did not require immediate demolition except where the necessary approvals could not be obtained. The council also asked to be allowed to apply for costs.

What the tribunal decided

The Senior Member refused the application to extend time and dismissed each appeal.

The orders made on 3 September 2026 were: (1) the application to extend time be refused; (2) each appeal be dismissed; and (3) any application for an order for costs in the appeals is to be made in writing with supporting submissions within 28 days, and if no application is filed then each party is to bear their own costs.

No money was ordered to be paid.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The time limit came from the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020, Schedule 2, Part 8, clause 6(1)(b), which gave 14 days to file an appeal. Time ran from when each order was issued, so it ran out on 18 July 2024. Clause 6(2) lets the Tribunal extend that time. The Tribunal has a wide discretion to do so, but the person asking must show that an extension is in the interests of justice, and the longer the delay, the more compelling the application must be. Following an earlier TASCAT decision, the relevant factors are the explanation for the delay, the steps the person took to challenge the decision, the prospects of success of the appeal, and prejudice to each side.

The starting point was the length of the delay: more than two years against an appeal period of two weeks. On the explanation, the Tribunal found the owner's representative knew there was a time limit and instead chose to pursue retrospective plumbing and building approval. That may have been understandable, but it was a deliberate decision not to appeal, and the steps taken were consistent with trying to comply with the orders rather than challenge them. The Tribunal accepted that the matter had some complexity, but not enough to account for a delay of that size, and noted the orders themselves said an appeal to the Tribunal was available. A further unexplained gap between apparently drawing an appeal notice in May 2026 and filing it in June 2026 also counted against the owner. This was described as a powerful factor against extending time.

On prospects of success, both sides invited the Tribunal to draw inferences. Prospects are assessed at a fairly impressionistic level, and the Tribunal said it had too little information to assess them properly, so it treated this as a neutral factor. On prejudice, the Tribunal accepted that refusing the extension exposed the cottage to the risk of demolition, but noted that neither order itself required demolition except where the necessary approvals could not be obtained, and that the standards behind the orders exist so buildings are safe and fit to live in. Two years is a long time, memories fade, records can be lost, and the delegate was on extended leave, so the council would also suffer some prejudice if time were extended.

Weighing those matters, the Tribunal was not satisfied that an extension was in the interests of justice. The application was not compelling enough given the length of the delay, so it was refused and both appeals were dismissed. Because the council had asked for the chance, the Tribunal left 28 days for any written costs application.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, this decision shows how strictly short appeal periods are read. The appeal clock in this case ran from the date the order was issued, not from when the dispute later came to a head, and it was only 14 days. A tribunal can extend that time, but the person who is late carries the job of persuading it, and the longer the delay the harder that becomes.

It also shows that working with a council to fix the problem is treated as something different from challenging the order. Trying to obtain retrospective approval or a temporary permit may explain some delay, but here it was read as an attempt to comply, and the fact that the notice itself spelled out the right of appeal counted against the argument that the process was misunderstood. Weak prospects are not needed to lose this kind of application; a neutral assessment of the merits did not rescue it. Separate periods of inaction, such as the month between drawing the appeal notice and filing it, were looked at on their own as well as part of the overall delay.

In disputes about a notice or order from a council or other authority, most people start with a written response to the body that issued it, setting out what they say is wrong and what they want changed, before any tribunal application is filed within whatever time limit the notice states.

How to apply: our step-by-step guide to a TASCAT application. More decisions: TASCAT cases and other civil disputes.

Source: Keach Securities & Investments Pty Ltd v Launceston City Council [2026] TASCAT 119 (read the full decision). This summary was prepared from the published decision for general information. It is not legal advice, and the tribunal’s own reasons are the authoritative record.