Bradford v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

The matter before the court was an application for leave to appeal brought by the appellant against a decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission. The Commission had revoked the appellant's licence to operate as a builder on the basis that he was not a "permitted individual" under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld). The appellant argued that the Commission had erred in its determination and sought to appeal the decision.

The legal issues before the court were whether the appellant was a "permitted individual" under the Act and, if not, whether the revocation of his licence was justified. The court was required to determine whether the Commission had correctly identified the circumstances that resulted in the appellant not being a permitted individual, and whether those circumstances were dominant or secondary. The court also needed to consider whether the appellant's failure to take legal advice was a relevant consideration in determining whether he was a permitted individual.

The court found that the appellant was not a permitted individual under the Act and that the Commission had correctly identified the circumstances that resulted in this outcome. The court held that the relevant circumstances were dominant and that the failure to take legal advice was not a relevant consideration. The court also found that the sub-subcontract was to be read with the subcontract and that this did not alter the outcome. The court held that the revocation of the appellant's licence was justified and refused the application for leave to appeal. The parties were ordered to file written submissions on costs within 14 days of the date of order, with costs to be decided on the papers.