Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board

Case [2013] FCA 1221

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board [2013] FCA 1221

Citation: Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board [2013] FCA 1221
Appeal from: Raoul Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board [2013] AATA 187
Parties: RAOUL AGAPIS v PLUMBERS LICENSING BOARD
File number(s): WAD 111 of 2013
Judge(s): SIOPIS J
Date of judgment: 18 November 2013
Catchwords: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – judicial power – whether Parliament acted to confer judicial power on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Legislation: Constitution Ch III
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ss 44, 44(1)
Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth) ss 17(2), 19, 34
Water Services Licensing Act 1995 (WA) ss 59, 59B, 59J, 61
Water Services Licensing (Plumbers Licensing and Plumbing Standards) Regulations 2000 (WA) regs 9, 9(1), 11, 12, 17(1)
Cases cited: Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board [2013] AATA 187
TNT Skypak International (Aust) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 82 ALR 175
HBF Health Funds Inc v Minister for Health and Ageing (2006) 149 FCR 291
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577
Lane v Morrison (2009) 239 CLR 230
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers.
Date of last submissions: 21 October 2013
Place: Perth
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 29
Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant was self-represented.
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr E Holman
Solicitor for the Respondent: Department of Commerce

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

WAD 111 of 2013
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:

RAOUL AGAPIS
Applicant
AND:

PLUMBERS LICENSING BOARD
Respondent

JUDGE:

SIOPIS J

DATE OF ORDER:

18 NOVEMBER 2013

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed.

2.The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

WAD 111 of 2013
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:

RAOUL AGAPIS
Applicant
AND:

PLUMBERS LICENSING BOARD
Respondent

JUDGE:

SIOPIS J

DATE:

18 NOVEMBER 2013

PLACE:

PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BACKGROUND

  1. The Water Services Licensing Act 1995 (WA) (the Act) regulates the licensing of plumbers in Western Australia. Section 59 and s 59B of the Act establish the respondent as the authority concerned with and responsible for the licensing and regulation of plumbers in Western Australia. Plumbers are also regulated by the Water Services Licensing (Plumbers Licensing and Plumbing Standards) Regulations 2000 (WA) (the Regulations). The Regulations are made pursuant to s 59J and s 61 of the Act.

  2. Regulation 9(1) requires every plumber to have a licence or permit issued by the respondent which authorises them to carry out work.  It is an offence to contravene this regulation.  Regulation 11 identifies the classes of licences and permits that the respondent may issue.  Relevantly, this includes a plumbing contractor’s licence.  A plumbing contractor’s licence authorises the holder to carry out various types of plumbing work.  A person undertaking such work without a…

Continue reading Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board [2013] FCA 1221
Case
[2013] FCA 1221
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court considered an appeal brought by a plumber against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The applicant, seeking to challenge the refusal of a licence by the respondent, the Plumbers Licensing Board, argued that the AAT's involvement in the decision-making process constituted an unconstitutional delegation of judicial power by Parliament. The applicant contended that the AAT, as a non-judicial body, should not have been involved in the final decision-making process for the granting of a licence, given that such decisions traditionally fall within the domain of judicial power.

The court was tasked with determining whether Parliament had indeed conferred judicial power upon the AAT by allowing it to make decisions on licence applications. This involved examining the legislative framework and the role of the AAT in the context of administrative law. The court needed to ascertain whether the involvement of the AAT in the decision-making process constituted an unconstitutional delegation of judicial power, and whether the AAT's decisions should be considered as judicial in nature.

The court found that the legislative framework did not confer judicial power upon the AAT in the manner claimed by the applicant. It held that the AAT's role was primarily administrative and not judicial, and that its involvement did not amount to an unconstitutional delegation of judicial power. The court emphasised that the AAT's decisions were subject to judicial review, which maintained the separation of powers. The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs, indicating that the applicant's contention lacked merit and was without foundation in law.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.