Bradley v Queensland Building Services Authority - [2013] QCAT 505

CITATION:

Bradley v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCAT 505

PARTIES:	Colin James Bradley (Applicant)
V
Queensland Building Services Authority (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR233-12

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

11 July 2013

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Sandra G Deane, Member

DELIVERED ON:

19 September 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The decision of the Queensland Building Services Authority made on 1 June 2012 to refuse to categorise Mr Colin Bradley as a “permitted individual” is confirmed.

2. The decision of the Queensland Building Services Authority made on 4 June 2012 to refuse to categorise Mr Colin Bradley as a “permitted individual” is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

Permitted Individual – review of decision not to allow application to be categorised as permitted individual

Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 ss 56AD(1), 56AD(8), 56AD(8A)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 20

Vadasz v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCAT 84

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:

Colin James Bradley represented by Mr R Glenday of Counsel instructed by Hall & Co, Solicitors

RESPONDENT:

Queensland Building Services Authority
represented by Mr M Robinson of Robinson Locke Litigation Lawyers

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Bradley was a director of NTM Builders Pty Ltd, a licensed building contractor. He held a nominated supervisor’s licence. On 10 January 2005 administrators were appointed to NTM and on 11 March 2005 Mr Bradley became bankrupt. As a consequence of these events the QBSA wrote to Mr Bradley in late 2009 notifying him that the QBSA considered him a permanently excluded individual. The effect of which is that Mr Bradley cannot hold a licence as a contractor or as a nominated supervisor or be a director, secretary or influential person for a licensed company or be in partnership with a licensed contractor. Mr Bradley contends he did not receive notice from the QBSA in relation to this matter until 2010.
In May 2012 Mr Bradley applied to the QBSA seeking to be categorised as a permitted individual in respect of both events[1].
[1] Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (QBSA Act) s 56AD(1).
In his NTM application he stated that:
a)NTM first started having difficulty paying debts in June 2004;
b)the main cause of the relevant event was ‘domestic discord or relationship breakdown’ and that he became aware of this in February 2004;
c)other significant contributing causes were economic conditions affecting the industry, inability to recover amounts owing and incorrect legal advice and that he became aware of the downturn in the building industry in September 2004;
d)at the time of appointment of administrators there was approximately $200,000 owing to creditors including the Australian Tax Office.
In his bankruptcy application he set out almost all of the same facts and background.
By decision dated 1 June 2012 the QBSA decided not to categorise Mr Bradley as a permitted individual in relation to the appointment of administrators to NTM.
By decision dated 4 June 2012 the QBSA decided not to categorise Mr Bradley as a permitted individual…

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 Bradley 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 505
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bradley v Queensland Building Services Authority involves Colin James Bradley, the applicant, seeking to be categorised as a permitted individual under the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991. The Queensland Building Services Authority, the respondent, had previously refused to categorise Mr Bradley as a permitted individual in relation to two events: the appointment of administrators to NTM Builders Pty Ltd, of which Mr Bradley was a director, and his subsequent bankruptcy. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal was tasked with reviewing these decisions under section 20 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Bradley had taken all reasonable steps to avoid the circumstances that led to the appointment of administrators to NTM and his bankruptcy, and if not, whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to categorise him as a permitted individual. The Tribunal needed to consider the mandatory matters set out in section 56AD(8A) of the QBSA Act, which include keeping proper books of account, seeking appropriate financial or legal advice, and ensuring guarantees provided were covered by sufficient assets.

The Tribunal found that Mr Bradley had not taken all reasonable steps to avoid the circumstances leading to the insolvency of NTM. His evidence was inconsistent and often contradicted by documentary evidence. For instance, while he claimed that domestic issues and economic conditions were primary causes of the insolvency, these were not cited in earlier reports. Additionally, his actions, such as incurring additional liabilities for NTM without proper financial backing, did not align with the required steps to mitigate insolvency risks. Regarding his bankruptcy, the Tribunal similarly found that Mr Bradley had not demonstrated he took all reasonable steps, particularly in ensuring that guarantees were backed by sufficient assets and in making appropriate provision for taxation debts.

Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the QBSA's decisions to refuse to categorise Mr Bradley as a permitted individual in relation to both the NTM insolvency and his bankruptcy. The decisions were based on the Tribunal's finding that Mr Bradley had not satisfied the statutory test for categorisation as a permitted individual under section 56AD(8) of the QBSA Act. The Tribunal did not exercise its discretion to set aside the QBSA's decisions and substitute its own, as it was not satisfied that Mr Bradley had taken all reasonable steps to avoid the insolvency events.

Orders