Baker v Queensland Building Services Authority

Link copied
Case Copied 9 min read
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
Younan v Queensland Building Services Authority [2011] QCA 1

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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. 

  5. 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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  1. Section 56AD of the QBSA Act

CaseChat AU logo

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
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 175
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Baker v Queensland Building Services Authority, the applicant, Baker, sought to challenge the decision of the Queensland Building Services Authority (QBSA) to refuse to categorise him as a permitted individual. The matter was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The central issue for determination was whether the QCAT had the jurisdiction to review the decision of the QBSA under the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (QBSA Act). The court had to consider whether the refusal to categorise Baker as a permitted individual was subject to judicial review and if the QCAT had the necessary jurisdiction to conduct such a review.

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.