Building certification in Queensland: Why developers shouldn’t rely blindly on building certificates

Building certification is a critical milestone for any development, but a certifier’s sign-off does not guarantee compliance.

Certifiers rely on certificates issued by ‘competent persons’, such as engineers, surveyors, and fire consultants, and do not independently verify every technical detail. If those underlying certificates are inaccurate, incomplete or misleading, the risk ultimately rests with the principal, potentially resulting in costly defects, delays, regulatory action, or claims from purchasers.

In Queensland, building compliance relies heavily on a system of certificates issued at different stages of the project to give principals, developers and regulators assurance that the work meets statutory requirements and approved plans. Key certificates include:

• Form 11 Certificate of Occupancy – this is not required for single detached houses, carports or garages, which instead requires Form 21
• Form 12 Aspect Inspection Certificate – issued by an appointed competent person to confirm that a specific part of a building meets regulatory standards and the approved building plans
• Form 15 Compliance certificate – relates to design or specification, confirming that if the design is followed, the work will comply
• Form 16 Inspection certificate – applies during or after construction, certifying that particular aspects or stages of the work have been inspected and comply. The certificate is sometimes supported by Form 12.
• Form 21 Final Inspection Certificate – issued by the building certifier for detached houses and smaller structures once construction is complete. This is essential for lawful occupation or use of the building.

While this certification framework is designed to create accountability and streamline compliance, in practice, it can give rise to risk and disputes. Principals and developers may assume that possession of certificates means their project is ‘safe’, only to discover later that the underlying work is non-compliant or defective. Understanding the scope, limitations and interaction of these certificates is therefore critical for managing risk and avoiding unpleasant surprises down the track.

A key part of this system is a certifier’s entitlement to rely on Form 12 Aspect Inspection Certificates given by ‘competent persons’, without re-checking the technical details themselves. However, this reliance also means that a certifier’s approval is only as robust as the certificates it is built upon. For developers, this underscores the need for proactive due diligence – certification alone does not shield you from the commercial or legal consequences of defective or incomplete documentation.

Building certification: How it works and the risks for principals

Certification can be complex and risky, particularly when principals rely on others to confirm compliance. It’s important to understand the legal requirements associated with certification in Queensland, and the risks that rests with principals and owners.

Relevant legislation and regulations

Under the Building Regulation 2021 (Qld) (Regulation), a building certifier may engage a ‘competent person’ to carry out their certifying functions. A competent person can provide either:

• design-specification help – assistance in assessing whether a proposed design or specification will comply with the building assessment provisions; or
• inspection help – assistance in inspecting assessable building work to confirm it complies with the building development approval.

The certifier is responsible for deciding whether an individual is competent, considering their qualifications, skills and experience, and must follow the chief executive’s assessment guidelines. If the task requires a licence or registration under another law, the individual must also hold that licence or registration.

Decisions about competency can be made broadly, for aspects of work, or for specific projects. Each decision must be properly recorded, including the person’s name, the scope of the decision, supporting documents, and the reasons for the decision, and these records must be kept for at least seven years. Failure to maintain the required records attracts penalties.

Once appointed, a competent person may issue certificates to support the certifier. There are two types:

1. design-specification certificates – issued before construction, confirming that if the design or specification is followed, the work will comply with the building assessment provisions
2. aspect inspection certificates – issued during or after construction, confirming that a particular aspect of the work has been inspected, completed, and complies with the building development approval.

To issue an aspect inspection certificate, the competent person must inspect the work themselves, be satisfied it complies, and carry out the inspection in line with best industry practice. For detached class 1a dwellings, additional safeguards apply. For example, only a cadastral surveyor may certify boundary clearances, and only a registered professional engineer may certify footing reinforcement. More generally, a person cannot issue a certificate for a stage of work they have carried out themselves, although in limited cases they may provide an aspect inspection certificate.

The Regulation also allows competent persons to rely on other competent persons. For example, an inspector may accept an aspect inspection certificate from another inspector, provided that person was properly qualified for that aspect and followed the prescribed process. In that case, the inspection does not need to be repeated.

All competent person certificates must be in the approved form, signed by the competent person, and clearly set out the basis for the certification. This includes identifying any reliance on tests, specifications, standards, codes of practice or other technical materials. Supplying false or misleading information in a certificate is a serious offence, with penalties of up to 100 penalty units.

Finally, while a certifier may accept and rely on a competent person certificate, acceptance is never automatic. The certifier must still be satisfied that the person was properly appointed as a competent person for that aspect, and that the certificate complies with the formal requirements of the Regulation.

Key risks of certification

Developers should not accept certificates at face value and consider what work is being certified, what the certifier relied on to provide that certification, and whether that reliance was appropriate for the type of work being certified.

The decision in Hau v QBCC [2024] QCAT 473 illustrates how reliance on certificates can go wrong. In this case, a certifier issued a final inspection certificate after relying on an engineer who was not a licensed building certifier, as required under the earlier Regulation when the work was performed. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal found that for critical stages, including excavation and slab works, the certifier was obliged to conduct personal inspections. Although the certifier was found to have engaged in unsatisfactory conduct, the owners had no relief from those proceedings.

When the QBCC acts against a certifier for unsatisfactory conduct or professional misconduct, those proceedings are regulatory in nature. The purpose is to protect the public and maintain professional standards, rather than to compensate individual homeowners or developers.

Even if the certifier is found to have acted improperly, the QBCC can only impose disciplinary measures such as fines, licence conditions, suspension, or cancellation. These outcomes do not provide damages or rectification for affected parties.

Homeowners or developers who suffer loss must pursue their own remedies, such as contractual claims against the builder, or negligence or misleading and deceptive conduct claims against the certifier.

Principals cannot assume compliance solely on the basis of a certificate. Gaps can arise from insufficient qualifications, conflicts of interest, or improper reliance on others. Careful contractual drafting, verification of certifier credentials, and proactive oversight are essential to manage these risks.

Contractual protections: What principals can require of builders

Contracts play a critical role in mitigating the risks associated with certification. While many building contracts obligate the builder to obtain necessary approvals and certificates, they often lack specificity regarding the reliability or quality of that certification, leaving principals exposed.

Principals can strengthen their position by requiring express contractual obligations that:

• ensure the builder obtains certificates from competent, appropriately licensed individuals, and provides such certificates to the principal for their own verification
• require certifiers to personally inspect relevant stages or rely on professionals who fulfill the legislative criteria of ‘competent persons’.

Contracts can also create direct consequences for builders if certification is deficient, such as:

• indemnities for losses, defects, or compliance issues arising from improper certification
• set-off rights, allowing the principal to withhold or deduct from progress payments for work affected by deficient certification
• remediation obligations, requiring the builder to rectify defects or non-compliance at their own cost.

By embedding these obligations and remedies, principals secure enforceable rights against the builder, rather than relying solely on uncertain claims against certifiers.

Key risk areas for principals and developers

Even with proper certification procedures, several risks remain:

• assumption of compliance – certificates are often assumed to accurately reflect compliance with approvals, standards, and statutory requirements. However, they may be inaccurate, incomplete, or based on incorrect information. As Hau v QBCC illustrates, even experienced certifiers may rely on persons who are not appropriately qualified, leaving critical stages effectively uncertified
• liability chain – principals may assume that certifier involvement shields them from liability. Defects or non-compliance can trigger warranty claims, contractual liability, or reputational damage. Reliance on a certifier does not automatically shift risk away from the principal
• timing risk – errors or omissions in certification may only surface after occupancy, handover, or sale. By that stage, rectification can be costly, disruptive, and sometimes practically impossible. Delayed discovery increases both financial and operational exposure
• insurance and enforcement issues – recovering losses from certifiers or consultants can be challenging. Principals usually lack a direct contractual relationship with these parties and must rely on negligence or misleading and deceptive conduct claims, which can be costly and uncertain.

These risk areas demonstrate that certificates support compliance but are not substitutes for active oversight, due diligence and contractual protections.

Practical safeguards for principals and developers

To mitigate risks associated with certification, principals should consider the following measures:

Enhanced contractual obligations

• require builders to ensure certifiers personally inspect relevant stages or rely on competent professionals
• confirm certifiers hold all necessary licences, registrations, and qualifications
• include warranties and indemnities for deficiencies or loss arising from defective certification
• allow withholding or reduction of progress payments if certification is deficient, creating a commercial incentive for proper compliance.

Verification

• avoid relying solely on the builder’s or certifier’s assurances. Developers should consider engaging their own independent consultants (engineers, surveyors, façade specialists, etc.) to review key aspects of the design and construction. Independent peer reviews can pick up issues that might otherwise be missed or glossed over in certification
• developers should ensure that the building certifier is properly appointed and that any ‘competent persons’ they engage meet the statutory requirements. Request and retain records of the certifier’s decisions on competency, as these will be critical if the appointment is later challenged. For instance, if a Form 12 has been given by an engineer, check the RPEQ directory or register to verify that they are a registered professional engineer
• request copies of all design-specification and aspect inspection certificates, along with any underlying reports or test results relied on. Do not just file the certificates away – have them reviewed by project managers or consultants who understand the technical detail
• pay particular attention to areas of recurring risk, such as structural adequacy, fire safety, waterproofing, and building envelope performance. Developers may consider commissioning targeted independent inspections at these stages, rather than relying solely on statutory certification.

Awareness of statutory requirements

• understand which work requires licensed certifiers versus self-assessable work, and identify gaps early to manage them proactively.

Plan for the long tail of liability

• non-compliance often only becomes apparent after occupation or sale. Developers should keep a complete and organised record of all certificates, competency decisions, and inspection reports. They should also ensure their own insurance and contractual protections are structured to respond to latent defects.

Embedding these safeguards in contracts and project management processes reduces liability exposure, ensures certification is meaningful, and secures enforceable rights against builders.

Takeaway

Certification is a crucial part of the building process but is not a guarantee of compliance or protection. Reliance on certificates, whether from engineers, builders, or certifiers, can be risky if the individual giving the certificate is not appropriately qualified, licensed, or independent. Non-compliance by a certifier does not automatically give principals relief or damages against the certifier.

For principals and developers, the takeaway is clear – certification alone cannot serve as a shield. Proactive measures, such as well-drafted contractual obligations, rights to withhold or set off payments, independent verification of critical stages, and meticulous documentation, are essential. By combining legal awareness with practical risk management, principals can better safeguard their projects, reduce exposure to liability, and maintain the integrity of the building process.

If you have any questions about your building certifications or need advice on managing legal risks in your project, please contact us here.

Disclaimer
The information in this article is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this article is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate. 

Published by:

Kirsty Smith

Share this