Armstrong v Plumbing Industry Council - [2013] QCAT 223

CITATION:

Armstrong v Plumbing Industry Council [2013] QCAT 223

PARTIES:	Gary Armstrong (Applicant)
v
Plumbing Industry Council (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR383-12

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

26 March 2013

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

R F King-Scott, Member

DELIVERED ON:

10 May 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Conditions 1 (a) and (b) of the Stay Decision of 20 December 2012 be lifted and that the Applicant’s endorsement to install Heat Pump and Solar Hot Water Systems be reinstated.

2. The fine of $6,600.00 be set aside and in lieu thereof the Applicant is fined $3,300.00, such fine to be paid by 31 July 2013.

3. The Applicant rectify [subject to the owners’ consent] all non-compliant work relating to the properties listed in the Attachment to the Show Cause Notice dated 20 August 2012 and any outstanding work in the Gold Coast City Council, Ipswich City Council, and Redlands City Council jurisdiction to the satisfaction of the relevant local government and the Respondent by 31 October 2013.

4. The Applicant lodge with the Respondent a duplicate copy of every Plumbing and Drainage Act 2002 Form 4 he is required to lodge with a local government for a period of 12 months ending 30 April 2014.

5. Should the Applicant not pay the fine by 31 July 2013 or not complete the rectification work by 31 October 2013, then his licence will be suspended for a period of 12 months commencing upon the day following the day of default.

CATCHWORDS:

Occupational Regulation – Disciplinary Proceedings – requirements of Show Cause Notice - particulars of the offences charged – identification of the facts and circumstances relied upon.

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:

In person.

RESPONDENT:

Chris Harris, Registrar, Plumbing Industry Council.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Gary John Armstrong is a licensed Plumber. He carries on his trade under the business name PBV Pty Ltd.
He entered into a contractual arrangement with a company Modern Group Pty Ltd which traded under the name of Modern Solar as their solar hot water system installer.
In 2010/11, the Queensland Government had implemented a Solar Hot Water Rebate Program which Modern Solar took advantage of.
In 2010/11, the Respondent, Plumbing Industry Council, carried out an audit of all installations under the program. It found some 700 cases of non-compliance. Mr Armstrong was one of those cases. He was fined $3,000. In essence, Mr Armstrong’s offence was that as he did not at the time of the installations hold an endorsement on his licence for the installation of solar and heat pump hot water systems, he was required to obtain a permit from the local authority [Form 1] before undertaking the regulated plumbing work. A further requirement was that on completion of the work, Mr Armstrong was required to request the local authority to assess the work within 7 days of completion. He failed to lodge a Form 1 or to arrange an inspection. There were 13 installations located principally in the Moreton Bay…

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 Armstrong v Plumbing Industry Council 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: [2013] QCAT 223
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Armstrong v Plumbing Industry Council, Gary Armstrong, a licensed plumber, sought a review of a decision by the Plumbing Industry Council (PIC) to suspend his licence for 12 months and fine him $6,600 for multiple instances of non-compliance with plumbing standards. Armstrong argued that the PIC's Show Cause Notice was insufficiently detailed, and that some of the charges against him were not properly considered. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) found that the PIC's notice was inadequate and that the evidence relied upon was extensive and confusing. The Tribunal concluded that Armstrong was guilty of some instances of defective workmanship and non-compliance but accepted that the safety issues had been exaggerated. The QCAT set aside the PIC's decision, reinstated Armstrong's endorsement to install heat pump and solar hot water systems, reduced the fine to $3,300, and ordered Armstrong to rectify non-compliant work and lodge copies of relevant forms with the PIC for a period of 12 months. The Tribunal also warned that failure to comply with these conditions would result in a 12-month suspension of Armstrong's licence.

The central issue in this case was whether the PIC had provided sufficient detail in its Show Cause Notice and whether the penalty imposed was appropriate. The QCAT found that the notice was insufficient and that the penalty was excessive. The Tribunal also found that Armstrong was guilty of some instances of defective workmanship and non-compliance, but that the safety issues had been exaggerated. The QCAT's decision to set aside the PIC's decision, reduce the fine, and impose new conditions on Armstrong's licence was based on the finding that the PIC had failed to provide a clear and concise Statement of Grounds for disciplinary action, and that the penalty imposed was excessive. The decision highlights the importance of providing sufficient detail in Show Cause Notices and the need for decision-makers to carefully consider the evidence before them when imposing penalties.

Orders