Berthelsen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission
Case
•
[2017] QCATA 82
•4 July 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Berthelsen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2017] QCATA 82
[2017] QCATA 82
4 July 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Berthelsen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission was a case before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), which was subsequently appealed to the Queensland Court of Appeal. The appellant, Berthelsen, was a licensed builder whose licence was cancelled by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) after he failed to disclose a conviction for an indictable offence. The QBCC's decision was upheld by QCAT, and Berthelsen appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The appeal raised two main issues. The first was whether the Tribunal erred in failing to consider or explain its reasons for rejecting Berthelsen's submissions. The second issue was whether the Tribunal erred in the exercise of its discretion in cancelling Berthelsen's licence. The Court of Appeal found that the Tribunal had erred in its consideration of Berthelsen's submissions and in the exercise of its discretion.
The Court of Appeal held that the Tribunal had failed to adequately consider Berthelsen's submissions and had not provided sufficient reasons for rejecting them. The Court found that the Tribunal had given insufficient weight to the fact that Berthelsen had not been sentenced to imprisonment for his offence and that he had not been found to have engaged in dishonest or dishonourable conduct. The Court also found that the Tribunal had erred in the exercise of its discretion in cancelling Berthelsen's licence without considering whether a lesser penalty would be sufficient. The Court held that the Tribunal should have considered whether a suspension of Berthelsen's licence for a period of time would be an appropriate penalty.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of QCAT, and returned the proceeding to the Tribunal for reconsideration. The Court ordered that OCR110-15 be listed for a directions hearing to allow the parties to file any additional evidence and to fix a date for the hearing. The Court did not make any orders as to the outcome of the reconsideration by the Tribunal.
The appeal raised two main issues. The first was whether the Tribunal erred in failing to consider or explain its reasons for rejecting Berthelsen's submissions. The second issue was whether the Tribunal erred in the exercise of its discretion in cancelling Berthelsen's licence. The Court of Appeal found that the Tribunal had erred in its consideration of Berthelsen's submissions and in the exercise of its discretion.
The Court of Appeal held that the Tribunal had failed to adequately consider Berthelsen's submissions and had not provided sufficient reasons for rejecting them. The Court found that the Tribunal had given insufficient weight to the fact that Berthelsen had not been sentenced to imprisonment for his offence and that he had not been found to have engaged in dishonest or dishonourable conduct. The Court also found that the Tribunal had erred in the exercise of its discretion in cancelling Berthelsen's licence without considering whether a lesser penalty would be sufficient. The Court held that the Tribunal should have considered whether a suspension of Berthelsen's licence for a period of time would be an appropriate penalty.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of QCAT, and returned the proceeding to the Tribunal for reconsideration. The Court ordered that OCR110-15 be listed for a directions hearing to allow the parties to file any additional evidence and to fix a date for the hearing. The Court did not make any orders as to the outcome of the reconsideration by the Tribunal.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Judicial Review
-
Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness
-
Reconsideration
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Jackson v Commissioner, Queensland Fire and Emergency Services [2020] QCATA 171
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Jackson v Commissioner, Queensland Fire and Emergency Services
[2020] QCATA 171
Jackson v Commissioner, Queensland Fire and Emergency Services
[2020] QCATA 171
Cases Cited
14
Statutory Material Cited
2
Berthelsen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission
[2016] QCAT 517
Bloomfield v Queensland Building and Construction Commission; Roofshield Restorations v Queensland Building & Construction Commission
[2014] QCAT 293
Amour v Queensland Building Services Authority
[2012] QCAT 360