Coconut v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

CITATION: Coconut & Ors v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2014] QCAT 203

PARTIES:	Maryanne Coconut Shayne Francis Blackman Leileen Lola Blackman Robert June Stanley Vera Nau (Applicants)
v
Queensland Building and Construction Commission (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: OCR143-13; OCR144-13; OCR145-13; OCR146-13; OCR147-13

MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE: 1 May 2014

HEARD AT: Townsville

DECISION OF: Member JC Carey

DELIVERED ON: 15 May 2014

DELIVERED AT: Townsville

ORDERS MADE:

1.   The decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission is set aside.

2. The applicants are to be categorised as permitted individuals within the meaning of s 56AD of the Queensland Building and Constructions Commission Act 1991 (Qld).

CATCHWORDS:

Application to be permitted individuals – review of Queensland Building and Construction Commission decision to reject application – reasonable steps

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 56AD

Younan v QBSA [2010] QDC 158

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANTS: Mr Askin, Roberts Nehmer McKee Lawyers

RESPONDENT: Mr Robinson, Robinson Locke Litigation Lawyers

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The applicants were all directors of Congress Community Development and Education Unit Ltd ACN 010 941 689 (‘CCDEU’). CCDEU operated a wholly owned subsidiary company called Shalom Development Services Pty Ltd ACN 067 131 755 (‘SDS’). CCDEU originally started as a college for indigenous students whose objectives included ‘to positively change the lives of Aboriginal and Islander people who suffer lower socio-economic outcomes of any Australian citizen’. SDS was incorporated to deliver infrastructure because CCDEU diversified its services at the request of various Government departments.

2. CCDEU obtained all of its funding from State and Commonwealth Government sources for the purposes of running the college, providing aged care and rehabilitation services and associated activities.

3. Administrators were appointed to CCDEU on 20 August 2012.

4. The issues for decision in this application are:

   a)    Identification of the relevant event;

   b)    Identification of the circumstances that resulted in the happening of the relevant event;

   c)    Whether the Applicants took all reasonable steps to avoid the coming into existence of those circumstances; and

   d)    If (c) is satisfied should discretion be exercised to classify the Applicants as permitted individuals.[1]

   [1]See Younan v QBSA [2010] QDC 158.

Relevant Event

1. There is no dispute that the relevant event is the appointment of administrators to CCDEU on 20 August 2012.

Identification of the circumstances that resulted in the happening of the relevant event

1. The circumstances that resulted in the happening of the relevant event are:

   a)    CCDEU had administrative difficulties recovering Abstudy funding which would have met the educational, travel and accommodation expenses of the students at Shalom College.

   b)    Funding granted by the Department of Housing and Aging (DoHA) was deposited into CCDEU’s consolidated account and used for day-to-day cash-flow purposes on a temporary basis in order to overcome short-term cash-flow difficulties caused by the rejection by Centrelink of various Abstudy grant funding applications. This gave rise to the possibility of a demand being made by DoHA for the return of the grant funding.

Whether the…