Anderson v Queensland Building Services Authority - [2010] QCAT 390

CITATION: Anderson v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QCAT 390

PARTIES: Mr Yustan Anderson

v

Queensland Building Services Authority

APPLICATION NUMBERS:   QR101-08;     QR284-08

MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:     3 March 2010

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: K O'Callaghan

DELIVERED ON: 16 August 2010

DELIVERED AT:      Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:
The reviewable decisions be confirmed.

CATCHWORDS : Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 Section 56AD permitted individual, whether Applicant took all reasonable steps to avoid coming into existence of the circumstances relating to the relevant event
Section 56AF(3)(b) cancellation of license
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:
Mr Yustan Andersen was self represented

RESPONDENT: Queensland Building Services Authority represented by Ms Mardee Campbell
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
1.    The Applicant filed two (2) applications to review two (2) decisions of the Queensland Building Services Authority (“the Authority”). Those decisions were:-
i.A decision of the Authority of 16 April 2008 to refuse to categorise the Applicant pursuant to section 56AD of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (“the QBSA Act”) as a permitted individual for a relevant event (“the permitted individual decision”)
ii.A decision of the Authority of 10 December 2008 to cancel the Applicants license pursuant to the provisions of sections 56AF(3) of the QBSA Act (“the license cancellation decision”)

The Applications were heard together.
The evidence
2.    The Applicant submitted 2 statements of evidence and 2 submission documents. He also relied on his oral evidence at the hearing.
3.    The Authority relied on its statement of reasons filed in each application, an affidavit, and oral evidence of Carol Leung in relation to the permitted individual decision and an affidavit of Natasha Dennis in relation to the license cancellation decision.
Chronology
4.    It is useful to set out a chronology of relevant events pertaining to both applications.
§ 21 May 2004, the Applicant was granted a carpentry (supervisor license) license.

§ 23 December 2004 the Applicant was granted a builder low rise license (builder license).

§ Diamond Residential Development Pty Ltd (“DRD”) was incorporated on 11 August 2003. The directors at that time were the Applicant, Mr Allen Bess and Ms Jennifer Joy Anderson. Ms Anderson resigned as a director on 23 January 2006 at which time the Applicant’s father, Mr Graham Anderson was appointed a director.

§ Mr Graham Anderson subsequently resigned as a director on 1 November 2007.

§ DRD was engaged in building homes.

§ On 5 December 2007, DRD was served with a statutory demand under the Corporations Act 2001 demanding payment of an alleged debt of $381,261.93.

§ On 14 January 2008 DRD was served with a winding up application as a consequence of non compliance with the statutory demand.

§ On 21 January 2008 DRD appointed an Administrator Jonathan Paul McLeod on the basis of a resolution that the company was insolvent, or likely to become insolvent at some future time. This is the “Relevant Event” for the purposes of section 56AD.

§ On 25 January 2008 the Authority sent…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Anderson v Queensland Building Services Authority and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] QCAT 390
Decision Date: 16 August 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Anderson v Queensland Building Services Authority, the applicant, Mr. Anderson, sought judicial review of the decisions made by the Queensland Building Services Authority (QBSA) to cancel his building license. Mr. Anderson argued that the authority had erred in cancelling his license without considering whether he took all reasonable steps to avoid the circumstances that led to the cancellation. The Queensland Court of Appeal was tasked with determining the legal validity of the QBSA's actions under the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991.

The central issue before the Court was whether the QBSA was required to consider if Mr. Anderson took all reasonable steps to avoid the circumstances that triggered the cancellation of his license, as per Section 56AD of the Act. Additionally, the Court needed to decide if the QBSA's decision to cancel the license under Section 56AF(3)(b) was legally sound and if the authority properly exercised its discretion. The Court had to balance the statutory requirements with the authority's duty to ensure building standards and public safety.

The Court held that the QBSA was not required to consider whether Mr. Anderson took all reasonable steps to avoid the circumstances that led to the cancellation. The Court found that Section 56AD did not impose such a requirement on the authority. Furthermore, the Court determined that the QBSA had correctly exercised its discretion under Section 56AF(3)(b) in cancelling the license, as the statutory criteria for cancellation were met. The Court concluded that the decisions of the QBSA were lawful and correctly made in accordance with the Act.

The Court confirmed the reviewable decisions made by the Queensland Building Services Authority, dismissing Mr. Anderson's application for judicial review. The cancellation of his building license by the QBSA was upheld as legally valid.

Orders

Orders of the court

The reviewable decisions be confirmed.

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.

PARTIES:	Mr Yustan Anderson
v
Queensland Building Services Authority

APPLICANT:	Mr Yustan Andersen was self represented
RESPONDENT:	Queensland Building Services Authority represented by Ms Mardee Campbell