Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Langford - [2005] SADC 59

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(District Court Administrative and Disciplinary Division)
COMMISSIONER FOR CONSUMER AFFAIRS v LANGFORD
Judgment of His Honour Judge Boylan
(Assessor Scott and Assessor Hutchinson)
30 May 2005
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Building Work Contractors Act 1995
Respondent who operated primarily as a property developer liable to disciplinary action on the ground that he carried out building work while not a holder of an appropriate licence.
Disqualified from being licensed or registerd under the Building Work Contractors Act for 3 years and prohibited from being a director of a body corporate that is a building work contractor for 3 years.

COMMISSIONER FOR CONSUMER AFFAIRS v LANGFORD
[2005] SADC 59

In these proceedings, the applicant, The Commissioner for Consumer Affairs laid a complaint against the respondent, Stephen West Langford, alleging a number of breaches of the Building Work Contractors Act, 1995. Mr Langford admitted various breaches and has accepted that he is liable for disciplinary action in respect of counts 6, 7, 8, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 on the Complaint. Upon his admitting liability to those counts, the Commissioner withdrew the remaining counts.
In respect of counts 6 to 8, Mr Langford entered into agreement with Mr Ladic, a licensed builder, whereby Mr Ladic contracted with a company controlled by Mr Langford to build a number of townhouses at Mawson Lakes. Mr Ladic put no money into the venture, but Mr Ladic understood he would receive a proportion of the proceeds of the sale of the townhouses. Mr Langford purchased the relevant land at Mawson Lakes and dealt with each of the homeowners by way of building contracts. In them, the builder was named as Ladic Constructions along with Mr Ladic’s builder’s licence number, but Mr Langford signed the contracts. He then proceeded to build the units, in the sense that he organised the tradesmen, received progress payments and paid bills as they came in. In effect, Mr Langford, who did not have a licence, used Mr Ladic and Mr Ladic’s licence as a “front”.
Mr Langford’s offending in counts 20 to 26 issimilar. Those counts are concerned with a development at Daisy Street, Mitchell Park. Mr Langford entered into an agreement with Mr Barry Rowett, the holder of a builder’s licence, to use the name of Rowett Constructions and its licence to build various units. Again, Mr Langford effectively used Mr Rowett’s company as a “front”. The company developing the land at Mitchell Park was controlled by Mr Langford and, again, it was he who organised all materials, tradesmen, received progress payments and the like.
It is important to note that there is no question of incompetent work having been performed on any of the sites. Nor was there any difficulty with insurance: there were policies of insurance effective in respect of all building work carried out, only because these policies were taken out in the name of the respective building contractor’s licence holders and not the builder, Mr Langford.
The nub of the Commissioner’s complaint against…

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 Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Langford 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: [2005] SADC 59
Decision Date: 30 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Langford, the respondent, Stephen West Langford, was found to be in breach of the Building Work Contractors Act 1995. The Commissioner for Consumer Affairs initiated proceedings against Langford, alleging that he had carried out building work without holding an appropriate licence. Langford admitted liability in relation to several counts, including acting as a building contractor without a licence by using licensed builders as a front to carry out building work on properties at Mawson Lakes and Mitchell Park. The court was required to determine the appropriate disciplinary action against Langford for his breaches of the Act, particularly given the importance of maintaining public confidence in the building industry.

The court considered the nature and seriousness of Langford's breaches, noting that while the work carried out was competent and proper insurance policies were in place, Langford had bypassed the legislative requirements designed to protect the public. The court emphasised the importance of compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements to maintain proper standards of conduct in the building industry. In light of these considerations, the court determined that Langford should be disqualified from being licensed or registered under the Act for a period of three years, and also prohibited from being a director of a body corporate that is a building work contractor for the same period.

The court concluded that the three-year disqualification periods were appropriate to reflect the requirements of the Act and to protect the public until Langford could obtain a building work contractor's licence. The disqualification periods were set to commence immediately, taking into account that Langford, as an undischarged bankrupt until 1996, would not be able to apply for a licence until 2006 in any event. The court ordered the three-year disqualification periods to begin from the date of the judgment.

Orders