Copeland v Queensland Building Services Authority - [2013] QCAT 385

CITATION:

Copeland v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCAT 385

PARTIES:	Paul Copeland (Applicant)
v
Queensland Building Services Authority (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR323-12

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

18 July 2013

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Michelle Howard, Member

DELIVERED ON:

26 July 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The decision of the Queensland Building Services Authority is set aside.

2. Paul Copeland is categorised as a permitted individual.

CATCHWORDS:

OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION - APPLICATION TO BE CATEGORISED AS A PERMITTED INDIVIDUAL - where liquidation of company of which applicant was a director - whether applicant took all reasonable steps to avoid the coming into existence of the circumstances which led to the liquidation - where circumstances resulting in the liquidation brought about by a series of events - where applicant took steps including taking advice and putting in place arrangements for credit management - whether all reasonable steps taken

Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 s 56AD
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 ss 20, 24

Younan v QBSA [2010] QDC 158, followed
QBSA v Meredith [2010] QCATA 50, cited
QBSA v Meredith [2013] QCATA 152, cited

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:

Mr Copeland represented himself

RESPONDENT:

Ms S Van Eyk appeared for the Queensland Building Services Authority

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Copeland holds a builder’s licence. Copeland Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd (the company) operated a design business which went into voluntary liquidation in November 2010. Mr Copeland was a director of the company. As a result, Queensland Building Services Authority (QBSA) advised Mr Copeland that it considered he was an excluded individual under the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (the QBSA Act).[1] The consequence is that his building licence must be cancelled by the QBSA, unless he is categorised as a permitted individual.[2]
[1] QBSA Act s 56AC.
[2] QBSA Act ss 56AD, 56AF.
He applied unsuccessfully to the QBSA for permitted individual categorisation. He now seeks review by the Tribunal of the QBSA’s decision to refuse to categorise him as a permitted individual.
The purpose of the review is to produce the correct and preferable decision.[3] For the review, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the decision-maker (that is, in this case, the QBSA) and makes the decision afresh.[4] The Tribunal’s decision is then taken to be a decision of the decision-maker.[5]
[3] QCAT Act s 20.
[4] QCAT Act s 20.
[5] QCAT Act s 24(2).
A person may be categorised as a permitted individual only if the person took all reasonable steps to avoid the coming into existence of the circumstances that resulted in the happening of the relevant event[6] which led to the person becoming an excluded individual.[7] The QBSA Act requires that in determining whether all reasonable steps were taken by a person that certain matters must be considered.[8] These include whether the person kept proper books of account and financial records; sought appropriate legal and financial advice; had appropriate credit management arrangements in…

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 Copeland v Queensland Building Services Authority 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: [2013] QCAT 385
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr Paul Copeland, sought review of a decision by the Queensland Building Services Authority (QBSA) to refuse his application to be categorised as a permitted individual. This refusal followed the liquidation of Copeland Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd, a company of which Mr Copeland was a director. If not categorised as a permitted individual, Mr Copeland's building licence is to be cancelled. The QBSA Act requires that to avoid cancellation, a person must have taken all reasonable steps to avoid the circumstances which led to the relevant event. The Tribunal stands in the shoes of the QBSA and makes the decision afresh.

Mr Copeland took a number of steps to ensure that the company was well managed. He engaged accountants to give advice and to prepare comprehensive financial statements. He consulted them on a regular basis and also when issues arose. He met with business consultants to seek advice on strategies to trade successfully through the global financial crisis. He engaged lawyers in relation to the purchase of the business and his duties as a director. He implemented their advice on the former and followed their advice on the latter. He also made appropriate credit management arrangements and followed them, unless he decided on commercial grounds not to do so. The circumstances which led to the liquidation were the combined and cumulative effects of the global financial crisis, his family breakdown and the subsequent liquidation of a major client. These events were largely outside of Mr Copeland’s control. He took a considered, responsible and conscientious approach to his duties as a director of the company. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Copeland took all reasonable steps to avoid the coming into existence of the circumstances which led to the liquidation. The Tribunal is satisfied it is appropriate to exercise the discretion to categorise Mr Copeland as a permitted individual. The Tribunal sets aside the decision of the QBSA and categorises Mr Copeland as a permitted individual.

Orders