Dinsey v Queensland Building Services Authority - [2013] QCATA 225

CITATION:

Dinsey v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCATA 225

PARTIES:	Mr Greg Thomas Dinsey (Appellant)
V
Queensland Building Services Authority (Respondents)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL188-12

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Hon J B Thomas AM QC, Judicial Member

DELIVERED ON:

22 July 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Leave to appeal is granted

2. The appeal is allowed.

3. The order of 22 May 2012 is set aside.

4. It is determined that the answer to the question “can section 56AC(6) of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 have application where the first event relates to one company and the other event or events relates to a different company or companies?” is “yes”.

CATCHWORDS:

Professions and trades – builders – licences and registration – building contractor's license – "excluded individual" – "permitted individual" – whether benefit of section 56AC(6) of Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 available when relevant company events flowing from the one set of circumstances relate to two different companies - interpretation of statutes

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), ss 4, 32C
Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (Qld), ss 56AC, 56AE, 58, 59, 60, 86(1)(k)

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is an appeal against an interlocutory judgment which decided a preliminary point of law relevant to the determination of five QCAT reviews namely OCR019-12, OCR036-12, OCR037-12, OCR038-12 and OCR039-12.
Mr Dinsey is the applicant in those pending reviews. He seeks to reverse determinations by the Queensland Building Services Authority (“the QBSA”), including its determination that he is permanently excluded from holding a building contractor's license.
The basis of the QBSA's determinations was that as the group of seven companies of which Mr Dinsey was a director had gone into external control, administration or liquidation, Mr Dinsey was therefore a seven times "excluded individual for a relevant event” under s 56AC of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (“the QBSA Act”).
As Mr Dinsey was regarded as at least twice excluded for relevant events he was regarded as a “permanently excluded individual” under s 58 of the QBSA Act.
The QBSA rejected Mr Dinsey’s consequential applications under s 56 AD to be a “permitted individual” for the relevant events,[1] and confirmed its view that he was an excluded individual for the relevant events.
[1] QBSA Act s 56AD.
Mr Dinsey applied to QCAT review of the QBSA's determinations. Directions were made in QCAT for the listing of the reviews in the one proceeding, and that a preliminary question be determined, namely:
Can s 56AC(6) of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 have application where the first event relates to one company and the other event or events relates to a different company or companies?
That issue was determined on the papers by…

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 Dinsey 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] QCATA 225
Decision Date: 22 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dinsey was the owner of a building company, which held a building contractor's license. The Queensland Building Services Authority (QBSA) issued a notice of intention to cancel the license due to Dinsey being an "excluded individual". The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The central legal issue before the court was whether section 56AC(6) of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 could apply to situations where events relevant to a building contractor's license cancellation related to two different companies, even if they were part of the same set of circumstances. Specifically, the court had to determine if Dinsey's involvement in two companies could simultaneously be grounds for losing his license under the Act.

The court examined the language and purpose of section 56AC(6), finding it intended to protect the public by preventing individuals who were unsuitable to hold a license from continuing to do so. The court held that the statutory language was broad enough to encompass scenarios where events affecting a license related to multiple companies. Dinsey's involvement in both companies was relevant to the assessment of his suitability to hold a license, as his actions in one company could impact the other. The court concluded that the statutory provision could apply even if the events related to different companies, provided they were part of the same set of circumstances. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order of 22 May 2012 was set aside.

The court's decision clarified that section 56AC(6) of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 is not limited to situations where events relate to a single company. It can apply to circumstances where relevant events pertain to multiple companies, as long as they arise from the same set of events. This interpretation ensures that the statutory aim of preventing unsuitable individuals from holding licenses is not undermined. The court's ruling provides a clear guideline for future cases involving similar issues of corporate and individual responsibility under the Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal is granted

2. The appeal is allowed.

3. The order of 22 May 2012 is set aside.

4. It is determined that the answer to the question “can section 56AC(6) of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 have application where the first event relates to one company and the other event or events relates to a different company or companies?” is “yes”.

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.