| CITATION: | Baker v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCAT 175 |
| PARTIES: | Mr Alan Baker (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Queensland Building Services Authority (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR096-12 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matter |
| HEARING DATE: | 22 October 2012 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Ann Fitzpatrick, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 17 April 2013 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | The decision of the Queensland Building Services Authority to refuse to categorise the applicant as a permitted individual be confirmed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | PERMITTED INDIVIDUAL Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991, s 56AD Younan v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QDC 158 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| Applicant: | Self represented |
| Respondent: | Queensland Building Services Authority represented by Mr Malcolm Robinson of Robinson Locke Litigation Lawyers Pty Ltd |
REASONS FOR DECISION
By notice dated 3 November 2010 the respondent Queensland Building Service Authority (QBSA), informed the applicant, Mr Baker, that the QBSA considered him to be an “excluded individual” pursuant to s 56AC of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (QBSA Act) as a result of him entering into bankruptcy on 7 September 2009. The effect of Mr Baker being an excluded individual is that he cannot for a period of five years from the date of his bankruptcy hold a licence as a contractor in the class of Plastering Drywall, which he had previously held.
Mr Baker applied to the QBSA on 25 November 2010 to be categorised as a Permitted Individual pursuant to s 56AD(1) of the QBSA Act.
This is an application to review a decision of the QBSA to refuse to categorise Mr Baker as a “Permitted Individual” for a “relevant event” within the meaning of s 56AD of the QBSA Act.
The application is made pursuant to s 86(1)(j) and s 87 of the QBSA Act and relies on the powers of this Tribunal pursuant to s 24(1)(c) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act) to set aside the decision and substitute its own decision that Mr Baker be categorised as a permitted individual.
Under s 20 of the QCAT Act the Tribunal must hear and decide a review of a reviewable decision by way of a fresh hearing on the merits. This Tribunal must be satisfied on the material before it that the test in s 56AD(8) of the QBSA Act is satisfied before it sets aside the QBSA’s decision and substitutes its own.
The Evidence
At the hearing of this matter Mr Baker gave evidence. He relied upon his application filed in this Tribunal on 29 March 2012. He filed no other material.
The QBSA relied upon the affidavit of Ms M Lockton, Senior Compliance Officer, sworn 14 June 2012. Ms Lockton reviewed and processed Mr Baker’s Permitted Individual Application.
It also referred to the bundles of documents filed by it which included the QBSA’s statement of reasons for refusing Mr Baker’s application, dated 14 February 2012.
The Law
Section 56AD of the QBSA Act
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Baker 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2013] QCAT 175
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the statutory framework governing the QBSA's decisions and the provisions for review of those decisions. It examined the relevant sections of the QBSA Act, particularly section 56AD, which outlines the permitted individual categorisation process. The court also referred to previous cases, notably Younan v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QDC 158 and Younan v Queensland Building Services Authority [2011] QCA 1, to understand the scope of judicial review in similar circumstances. The court determined that the decision to refuse to categorise Baker as a permitted individual was not subject to judicial review under the QBSA Act and, therefore, the QCAT did not have the jurisdiction to review the decision.
Consequently, the court confirmed the decision of the QBSA to refuse to categorise Baker as a permitted individual. The tribunal held that the QBSA's decision was not amenable to judicial review and, as such, Baker's application to challenge the decision was dismissed. The court's decision was based on the statutory provisions and the legal principles established in the previous cases, which indicated that the QBSA's decisions regarding the categorisation of permitted individuals were not subject to judicial review. Therefore, the QCAT did not have the jurisdiction to review the QBSA's decision in this matter.
Orders
Orders of the court
The decision of the Queensland Building Services Authority to refuse to categorise the applicant as a permitted individual 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.