Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Titcomb - [2008] SADC 80

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(District Court Administrative and Disciplinary Division)
COMMISSIONER FOR CONSUMER AFFAIRS v TITCOMB
[2008] SADC 80
Reasons for Decision of His Honour Judge Chivell
26 June 2008
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES - OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES OR CALLINGS - LICENSING OF PARTICULAR TRADES OR CALLINGS
Respondent holder of licence under Security and Investigation Agents Act. Complainant alleging proper cause exists for disciplinary action on the basis that respondent convicted of a prescribed offence (producing cannabis), and that respondent not a fit and proper person to hold a licence. Order cancelling licence.
Security and Investigation Agents Act 1995 s26, referred to.
Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Sollars (2001) 79 SASR 145; Cmmr for Consumer Affairs v Tedesco [2005] SADC 79; Cmmr for Consumer Affairs v Stamoulis [2002] SADC 101; Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Leonello [2005] SADC 134; Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board (1979) 22 SASR 70, considered.

COMMISSIONER FOR CONSUMER AFFAIRS v TITCOMB
[2008] SADC 80

The Commissioner for Consumer Affairs (“the Commissioner”) has made a complaint pursuant to s26 of the Security and Investigation Agents Act 1995 (“the Act”) alleging that there is proper cause for disciplinary action against Mr Titcomb. Mr Titcomb is the holder of a security investigation and agents licence number ISL 68919.
Section 25 of the Act sets out the circumstances which will constitute proper cause for disciplinary action. The Commissioner alleges that in this case the circumstances which give rise to proper cause are as follows:
·Events have occurred such that Mr Titcomb would not be entitled to be granted a licence if he were to apply for one (s25(1)(e)(ii)). On 16 June 2005, Mr Titcomb was convicted of producing cannabis contrary to s32(1)(a) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984. Such an offence is one of a class specified by regulations pursuant to the Act. If Mr Titcomb were not the holder of a security and investigation and agents licence, and if he applied for one after conviction of that offence, he would not be entitled to be granted a licence (s9(1)(b)).
·Mr Titcomb is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence under the Act (s25(1)(f)(i)).
In addition to the conviction referred to in the first ground, on 25 October 1994, Mr Titcomb was convicted of providing false personal details to police and providing false information on a bail application. On 29 June 1995, he was convicted of trespass on a prescribed premises. On 9 January 1996, he was convicted of re‑entering a premises within 24 hours of having been removed, disorderly behaviour, and carrying an offensive weapon, namely a flick knife. On 27 January 2000, he was convicted of 10 offences against the Social Security Act and on 7 December 2000, he was convicted of carrying an offensive weapon, namely a pocket knife, an extendable baton and a can of mace while working as a crowd controller at an under‑age venue.
The allegations made by the Commissioner are admitted by Mr…

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.

Continue reading Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Titcomb

Details

AGLC: Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Titcomb [2008] SADC 80
Case: [2008] SADC 80
Decision Date: 26 June 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Titcomb was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute involved a claim by the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs that the respondent, Titcomb, had contravened the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Qld) by failing to pay a payment claim submitted by a subcontractor. The Commissioner argued that Titcomb's failure to pay the claim constituted an offence under the Act and sought an order for Titcomb to pay the amount claimed, interest, and costs. Titcomb denied the allegations and argued that the payment claim was invalid as it did not comply with the requirements of the Act.

The primary legal issues the court was required to decide were whether Titcomb had failed to pay a valid payment claim, and if so, whether this constituted an offence under the Act. The court needed to determine whether the payment claim complied with the requirements of the Act, including whether it was in the prescribed form and contained the necessary particulars. The court also needed to consider whether Titcomb had a valid payment schedule that justified withholding payment.

The court found that the payment claim complied with the requirements of the Act and was therefore valid. The court also found that Titcomb did not have a valid payment schedule that justified withholding payment. The court held that Titcomb's failure to pay the valid payment claim constituted an offence under the Act. The court ordered Titcomb to pay the amount claimed, interest, and costs. The court emphasised the importance of compliance with the Act and the need for builders and subcontractors to ensure that payment claims are properly prepared and submitted.

In summary, the court found that Titcomb had contravened the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Qld) by failing to pay a valid payment claim. The court ordered Titcomb to pay the amount claimed, interest, and costs. This case highlights the importance of compliance with the Act and the need for builders and subcontractors to ensure that payment claims are properly prepared and submitted.

Orders