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

1. 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.

2. 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”. 

3. 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. 

4. 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. 

5. The nub of the Commissioner’s complaint against Mr Langford is that he worked as a “building worker” (as defined in the Act) and that he bypassed and disregarded the requirements of the legislation and the important controls established “to protect the public” by the Building Work Contractors Act 1995 by using licensed builders as “fronts” for building work that was in fact done by him.

6. As we have said, Mr Langford has admitted his liability.  In submissions which he made, Mr Langford described himself as a “property developer”.  He accepts that, on the occasions in respect of which he has breached the Act, he crossed the line by operating as a builder rather than simply as a property developer.   That may be true, but it does no more than demonstrate that Mr Langford did not acknowledge the requirements of the Act. 

7. We are satisfied that there is proper cause for disciplinary action against Mr Langford.  The Commissioner has asked that that disciplinary action take the form of disqualifying him from being a licensed builder or registered under the Act until further order.  Mr Langford does not oppose some disciplinary action of that nature being taken but has submitted that it would be appropriate for the Tribunal to disqualify him for a fixed period. 

8. It must always be remembered that the purpose of the Act and these proceedings is to regulate the conduct of persons who are licensed or registered under the Act, to protect the public (Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Sollars (2001) 79 SASR 145) (Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Sommariva DCADD-03-38,  DCADD-03-39) and to maintain proper standards of conduct (Craig v Medical Board of South Australia (2001) 79 SASR 545).  Clearly it is important, in the interests of the general public and to maintain public confidence in the integrity of building workers, that such persons comply with statutory and regulatory requirements, that they be qualified and experienced for the purposes of properly carrying on the business authorised by the licence.  In this matter, we have pointed out that there has been no suggestion of incompetent work and that there were proper policies of insurance in place, but not in Mr Langford’s name.  Nevertheless, it is important that any person carrying out building work complies with the provisions of the Act.  Those provisions are not to be circumvented by persons using holders of licences as “fronts” as has Mr Langford.

9. In all the circumstances, we are of the opinion that, to reflect the requirements of the Act and to protect the public until Mr Langford obtains a building work contractor’s licence, that he be disqualified from being licensed or registered under the Building Work Contractors Act 1995 for a period of three years and that, further, he be prohibited from being a director of a body corporate that is a building work contractor for a period of three years. We so order. In fixing those three year periods, we have taken into account the fact that Mr Langford, as a consequence of his being an undischarged bankrupt until 1996, would not be able to apply for a licence until some time in 2006 in any event. We order that the disqualification periods begin today.