Clavell v Office of Consumer and Business Affairs

In Clavell v Office of Consumer and Business Affairs, the appellant, Craig James Clavell, sought a Building Work Contractor’s Licence and Supervisor’s Registration for the demolition of single storey residential buildings and outbuildings. The Commissioner for Consumer Affairs refused to grant him a building work contractor’s licence on the basis that he was not a fit and proper person to hold such a licence, citing his conviction for indecent assault in 1996. The appellant appealed against the Commissioner’s decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant was a fit and proper person to be granted a building work contractor’s licence. Under the Building Work Contractors Act 1995, a person must be a fit and proper person to be granted a licence, which requires not only requisite knowledge and experience but also sufficient moral integrity and rectitude of character to be entrusted with the responsibilities of the licence. The court had to determine if the appellant's past criminal conviction and his current stance on the offence affected his fitness to hold the licence.

The Tribunal considered the appellant's criminal conviction for indecent assault and his current attitude towards the offence. Despite the appellant expressing regret for the incident, the Tribunal found that he had not genuinely accepted responsibility for his actions. The appellant neither denied nor admitted the offence and maintained that the woman's account was exaggerated. The Tribunal also noted the appellant's failure to seek professional help after the conviction, despite a suggestion from the sentencing Magistrate. These factors led the Tribunal to conclude that the appellant had not come to terms with the incident and, as such, could not be safely accredited to the public for the responsibilities entailed by the licence.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Commissioner’s decision to refuse the appellant a building work contractor’s licence. The Tribunal found that until the appellant genuinely accepted responsibility for his past actions and sought appropriate help, he could not be considered a fit and proper person to hold the licence. The decision underscored the importance of moral integrity and rectitude of character in assessing fitness to hold a licence under the Act.