AB v Queensland Building Services Authority - [2013] QCATA 187

CITATION:

AB v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCATA 187

PARTIES:	Mr AB (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Queensland Building Services Authority (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL196-12

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Hon James Thomas AM QC, Judicial Member

DELIVERED ON:

24 January 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Leave to appeal refused.

2. The Appeal Tribunal prohibits the publication of:

a. Any identifying information of Mr AB in these reasons for decision; and

b. Attachment “B” to the Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal filed 28 June 2012.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEALS – principles for grant of leave – principles applicable to appeals against exercise of discretion – Non-Publication orders – Principles on which such orders made – whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to grant a non-publication order – whether a non-publication order should be granted in respect of this decision

Queensland Civil and Administration Act 2009 ss 26, 28, 29, 32, 66, 66(2)(b), 142, 142(3).
Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 s 56AD.

Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc [1981] 148 CLR 170
Cutbush v Team Maree Property Service (No 3) [2010] QCATA 89
John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd (Receivers & Managers Appointed) v Local Court of New South Wales & Ors (1991) 26 NSWLR 131
Mace v Murray [1955] 92 CLR 370
Mitchamy Development Pty Ltd v Morrison and Walsh [2010] QCATA 51
Norbis v Norbis [1986] 161 CLR 513
R v McGrath [2002] 1 Qd R 520
Russell v Russell (1976) 134 CLR 495
Seven Network (Operations) Limited & Ors v
James Warburton (No 1) [2011] NSWSC 385

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is an appeal against a Member’s refusal to make a non-publication order under s 66 of the QCAT Act.

History

Mr AB was the director of a number of companies, one or more of which became insolvent. This was deemed by the QBSA to be a ‘relevant company event’, which impacted upon his registration as a builder. Mr AB then applied to be a ‘permitted individual’ under s 56AD of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991. Success in such an application was necessary in order to avoid exclusion or cancellation of his licence.
On 31 October 2011 the QBSA refused his application.
Mr AB then brought two applications to QCAT, one for review of QBSA’s refusal (“the s 56AD proceedings”), and the other for a non-publication order concerning those review proceedings.
Among other material presented to QCAT by Mr AB was an undated psychiatric report of Dr Miles, received by the Tribunal on 9 January 2012. Dr Miles expressed the view that ‘a Tribunal that is public and open to publication would threaten his mental and physical safety’. It was relied on in Mr AB’s submissions that…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading AB v Queensland Building Services Authority

Details

AGLC: AB v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCATA 187
Case: [2013] QCATA 187
Decision Date: 24 January 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of AB v Queensland Building Services Authority, the primary dispute involved the refusal of a non-publication order by the tribunal in relation to certain information concerning the appellant, Mr AB. This appeal was brought before the court to challenge the tribunal's decision on the grounds of whether it had erred in denying the request for a non-publication order and to determine if such an order should be granted concerning this decision. The Queensland Building Services Authority was the respondent, defending the tribunal's decision.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the principles governing the grant of leave to appeal against the exercise of discretion by the tribunal, the criteria for imposing non-publication orders, and the correctness of the tribunal's decision in declining the appellant's request for such an order. The court was required to consider whether the tribunal had applied the appropriate legal principles and whether the tribunal's decision was justifiable based on the evidence and arguments presented.

The court reviewed the tribunal's decision and determined that it had not erred in refusing to grant the non-publication order. The tribunal had correctly applied the relevant legal principles, and the decision was supported by the evidence and arguments provided. The court found that the tribunal's reasons for decision were adequate and that the refusal of the non-publication order was justified. However, the court imposed a non-publication order on the identifying information of Mr AB and Attachment "B" to the application, as it considered these aspects to be necessary for the protection of the appellant's privacy.

The final orders of the court were to refuse the leave to appeal and to prohibit the publication of any identifying information of Mr AB and Attachment "B" to the application filed on 28 June 2012. The court's decision upheld the tribunal's ruling and imposed a limited non-publication order to address the specific privacy concerns raised by the appellant.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal refused.

2. The Appeal Tribunal prohibits the publication of:

a. Any identifying information of Mr AB in these reasons for decision; and

b. Attachment “B” to the Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal filed 28 June 2012.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.