Corcoran v Queensland Building Services Authority (No 2) - [2011] QCATA 158

CITATION:

Corcoran v Building Services Authority [2011] QCATA 158

PARTIES:	Ross Anthony Corcoran (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Building Services Authority (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL020-11

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Richard Oliver, Senior Member
Michael Howe, Member

DELIVERED ON:

5 July 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – Where applicant deemed to be an “excluded individual” pursuant to section 56AC of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act – meaning of “for the benefit of a creditor” in section 56AC(2)(a) – whether the phrase should be restricted to situations only where a provisional liquidator, liquidator, administrator or controller appointed by a creditor – whether phrase should be given its plain meaning – consideration of principles of statutory construction – whether procedural fairness

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 142(1)
Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991, ss 56AC(2); 56AD; 56AD(8), Part 3A
Acts Interpretation Act1954, s 14B(1)

Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue [2009] 239 CLR 27

Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1981] 147 CLR 297

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Richard Oliver, Senior Member

In this matter I have had the advantage of reading the reasons of Mr Howe, Member, set out below. I agree with those reasons, his conclusions, and the order he proposes.

Mr Howe, Member

Ross Anthony Corcoran was a former director of Canary Candles Pty Ltd and Corwill Holdings Pty Ltd. Mr Corcoran resigned as Director and Secretary of Canary Candles Pty Ltd on 11 November 2006. On 20 February 2008 the then sole Director of the company, Mr Clark, placed Canary Candles Pty Ltd into voluntary administration. At that time Mr Corcoran was the sole shareholder of Canary Candles Pty Ltd. The Building Services Authority made the decision to categorize Mr Corcoran as an excluded individual in relation to this relevant company event on 18 November 2008.
Corwell Holdings Pty Ltd was placed into voluntary administration on 5 June 2008. At that time Mr Corcoran was a Director of that company. The Building Services Authority made the decision to categorize Mr Corcoran as an excluded individual in relation to this relevant company event on 9 July 2008.
Mr Corcoran applied to the Authority to be categorized as a permitted individual in relation to the two relevant company events, but was refused with respect to both. Mr Corcoran applied to the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal (CCT) for reviews of those decisions. On 16 September the CCT ordered the two applications be consolidated. From 1 December 2009 the CCT was amalgamated into the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) and the current application for review was transferred to QCAT.
The review was initially heard by a Tribunal Member who was unable to finalize the matter to…

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 Corcoran v Queensland Building Services Authority (No 2) 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: [2011] QCATA 158
Decision Date: 5 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Corcoran v Queensland Building Services Authority (No 2) involved the applicant, seeking to challenge a decision that deemed them an "excluded individual" under section 56AC of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act. The dispute centred around the interpretation of the phrase "for the benefit of a creditor" in section 56AC(2)(a) of the Act. The applicant argued that the phrase should be restricted to situations where a provisional liquidator, liquidator, administrator or controller is appointed by a creditor, and not in cases where such an appointment occurs by a court. The applicant also argued that the phrase should be given its plain meaning and that procedural fairness was not afforded to them.

The court was required to decide whether the phrase "for the benefit of a creditor" should be interpreted narrowly or broadly, and whether it should be given its plain meaning. The court also needed to determine whether the applicant was afforded procedural fairness during the process. The court considered various principles of statutory construction, including the mischief rule, the golden rule, and the literal rule. The court found that the phrase "for the benefit of a creditor" should be given its plain meaning, and that the phrase was not restricted to situations where a provisional liquidator, liquidator, administrator or controller is appointed by a creditor. The court also found that procedural fairness was not breached in this case.

The appeal was dismissed. The court held that the phrase "for the benefit of a creditor" in section 56AC(2)(a) of the Act should be given its plain meaning and that it was not restricted to situations where a provisional liquidator, liquidator, administrator or controller is appointed by a creditor. The court also held that procedural fairness was not breached in this case. The decision of the lower court was affirmed, and the applicant's appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed.

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.