Construction Occupations Registrar v Minotaur Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd - [2015] ACTSC 275

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Construction Occupations Registrar v Minotaur Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 275
Hearing Date:	3 August 2015
DecisionDate:	17 September 2015
Before:	Refshauge J
Decision:	Each party pay his or its own costs of the discontinuance of the appeal.
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	CIVIL – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – appeal – appeal from ACAT – removal Appeal Tribunal of the ACAT to the Supreme Court – Notice of Discontinuance – costs – change in circumstances beyond the control of the parties – parties conducted the appeal in a reasonable manner – parties were aware that they were exposing themselves to costs – not possible to speculate as to which party would have been successful
Legislation Cited:	ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (ACT), s 83(1) Construction Occupations (Licensing) Act 2001 (ACT), ss 17, 19, 19(4), 19(6), 28, 56(1)(a), 103, 104(1)(c), 123C Construction Occupations (Licensing) Regulations 2004 (ACT), s 42A, Schedule 4 Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 1163, 1707, 5171, 5171 (7), 5171(8), r 5151(7), Pt 5.3, Div 2.11.6
Cases Cited:	Abbey v Mack (2010) 244 FLR 324 Appellants v Law Society of the ACT (2011) 252 FLR 209 Construction Occupations Registrar v B & T Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd [2015] ACAT 24 Director of Public Prosecutions v B (1998) 72 ALJR 1175 Haines v Croft (2001) 146 ACTR 59 Minotaur Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd v Construction Occupations Registrar [2014] ACAT 43 Ohn v Walton (1995) 36 NSWLR 77 Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72 Rural and General Insurance Broking Pty Ltd v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (2009) 231 FLR 199 South Melbourne City Council v Hallam (No 2) (1994) 83 LGERA 307 State of Tasmania v Anti-Discrimination Tribunal (2008) 17 Tas R 227
Parties:	Construction Occupations Registrar (Appellant) Minotaur Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Mr C McCarthy (Appellant) Mr C Erskine SC (Respondent)
Solicitors ACT Government Solicitor (Appellant) Trinity Law (Respondent)
File Number:	SC 88 of 2014
Decision under appeal:	Tribunal: ACT Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal Before: Senior Member Anforth Date of Decision: 17 July 2014 Case Title: Minotaur Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd v Construction Occupations Registrar Citation: [2014] ACAT 43

Refshauge J:

In circumstances to which I will refer in more detail below, the respondent, Minotaur Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd (Minotaur), applied to the Australian Capital Territory Construction Occupation Registrar (the Registrar), a statutory office established by s 103 of the Construction Occupations (Licensing) Act 2001 (ACT) (the Licensing Act), for a Class B Builder’s Licence under s 17 of the Licensing Act.

The Registrar refused Minotaur’s application and Minotaur challenged that decision by applying for a review by the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the ACAT), in accordance with s 123C of the Licensing Act and s 42A and Item of the Schedule 4 of the Construction Occupations (Licensing) Regulations 2004 (ACT).

The ACAT heard the application by Minotaur and, on…

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 Construction Occupations Registrar v Minotaur Constructions... 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: [2015] ACTSC 275
Decision Date: 17 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Construction Occupations Registrar, represented by the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment, sought an appeal from a decision of the Australian Capital Territory Administrative Appeals Tribunal (ACAT). The Registrar was the appellant and Minotaur Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd was the respondent. The dispute concerned the removal of the respondent's licence under the Building and Construction Occupations Registration Act 1991 (ACT). The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Registrar's appeal from the ACAT was properly before the court, and if so, whether the costs of discontinuing the appeal should be borne by the appellant, the respondent, or shared between them. The court was required to determine whether the appeal was validly before it, and if so, whether the change in circumstances that led to the discontinuance of the appeal was beyond the control of the parties.

The court held that the appeal was validly before it and dismissed the appeal. The court found that the parties had conducted the appeal in a reasonable manner, and that the change in circumstances leading to the discontinuance was beyond the control of the parties. The court also noted that both parties were aware that they were exposing themselves to costs if the appeal was unsuccessful. The court concluded that it was not possible to speculate as to which party would have been successful and ordered that each party pay their own costs of the discontinuance of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Each party pay his or its own costs of the discontinuance of the appeal.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.