Delonga v Queensland Building Services Authority
[2011] QCAT 206
•19 May 2011
| CITATION: | Delonga v Queensland Building Services Authority [2011] QCAT 206 |
| PARTIES: | Mr Jakov Delonga |
| v | |
| Queensland Building Services Authority |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR012-11 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Peta Stilgoe, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 19 May 2011 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | 1. The application for a stay of the Authority’s decision is refused. |
| CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – where applicant sought a stay of the Authority’s decision – where no material filed in support of application – where Authority cites significant public interest issues – whether balance of convenience favours stay Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 22(4) |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr Delonga was a director of Trevend Pty Ltd. That company went into liquidation on 19 October 2010.
By letter dated 5 October 2010, the Authority informed Mr Delonga that:
a)It considered him an excluded individual.
b)He could apply to be categorised as a permitted individual.
Mr Delonga did apply to be categorised as a permitted individual. By letter dated 2 November 2010, the Authority advised him that the application had been refused. Mr Delonga did not apply for a review of that decision.
Mr Delonga has now applied for a review of the Authority’s decision to cancel his licence. He relies on the following:
a)He has a number of companies of which he is a director and these companies are presently involved in construction.
b)If his licence is cancelled, his companies would be unable to carry out the construction work.
c)The cancellation of his licence will cause him and his family extreme personal hardship.
The difficulty with Mr Delonga’s application is that he has not provided any material to support his application. The tribunal does not know:
a)Which companies are affected.
b)What contracts are on foot and what stage they have reached.
c)What steps Mr Delonga has taken to secure an alternative licensee.
Further, Mr Delonga has not addressed any of the matters set out in s 22(4) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.
The Authority opposes the stay, citing public interest concerns. It is implicit in the Authority’s submission that it considers Mr Delonga’s prospects of success on the substantive application to be low. I have a similar view.
The balance of convenience does not favour a stay, given the lack of material provided to the tribunal and the significant public interest concerns. While I sympathise with Mr Delonga’s financial position, it is not a circumstance that makes his situation unusual, or warrants the tribunal’s exercise of discretion to grant a stay.
The application for a stay of the Authority’s decision should be refused.
0
0