Dobson v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2015] QCAT 243

CITATION:

Dobson v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2015] QCAT 243

PARTIES:	Shaun Gerald Dobson (Applicant)
v
Queensland Building and Construction Commission (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR075-14

MATTER TYPE:	General administrative review matters
HEARING DATE:	19 June 2015

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Dr Crane, Member

DELIVERED ON:

23 June 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The decision of the QBCC to reject an application seeking a classification as a Permitted Individual is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

General administrative review matters - permitted individual - whether the decision of the QBCC to categorize applicant as an Excluded Individual was reasonable

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld)

Younan v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QDC 158

REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT:

Self

RESPONDENT:

Represented by Mr M Robinson of Robinson Locke Lawyers

REASONS FOR DECISION

Previous History and Conduct

In or around August 2007 the Applicant, Mr Dobson was introduced to a Chinese national, a Mr Jerry Shen.
On the evidence given by the Applicant Mr Shen impressed him with a conspicuous display of apparent wealth and this impression was confirmed during a two week visit to Shanghai where he met with Shen and inspected Shen’s core business which centred around the manufacture of candles. Shen’s apparent ownership of an expensive motorcar amongst other displays appears to have made a strong and lasting impression on Mr Dobson.
Subsequently, Shen and Mr Dobson agreed to enter into a Joint Venture arrangement to construct a house at Bulimba using some material imported from China by Shen. Difficulties quickly arose however due to the topography of the site which added to cost and to provision of materials supplied by Shen which did not comply with Australian standards.
In due course Mr Dobson ceased work on the site but only after incurring a personal debt of $125,000.
After Mr Dobson’s withdrawal Shen allegedly completed the construction using labourers from China. How Shen was able to complete the project while simultaneously professing that he lacked the funds to pay Mr Dobson has not been explained.
Despite this unfortunate beginning Mr Dobson retained a relationship with Shen and with a new participant, Mr Leach who was a solicitor then in private practice.
It appears that Shen convinced Mr Dobson that his $125,000 debt could be discharged out of the profits which would be generated by the construction and sale of three houses in Norman Park.
Shen requested, and Mr Dobson paid, an additional $75,000 for a 10% interest in this project. His personal debt at this point had risen to $200,000,
Finance for this project was obtained from the CBA under three Consumer Credit Agreements totalling, in aggregate, $6,614,800.
Mr Dobson, with Shen, was a signatory on all three contracts.
Site works and construction of the first house commenced and to facilitate the periodic payment of drawdowns against the available bank funding Mr Dobson signed a number of blank drawdowns. (The precise number of blank drawdown documents is uncertain).
The existence of blank drawdowns and, according to Mr Dobson, the…

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 Dobson v Queensland Building and Construction Commission 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] QCAT 243
Decision Date: 23 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Dobson v Queensland Building and Construction Commission, the dispute centred on the applicant's challenge to the Commission's decision to categorise him as an Excluded Individual. The matter was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The applicant, seeking to be classified as a Permitted Individual, argued that the Commission's decision was unreasonable and sought its review.

The primary legal issues before the tribunal involved the interpretation and application of the relevant statutory provisions governing the classification of individuals by the Commission. The applicant contended that the Commission's decision was not based on proper consideration of the evidence and the statutory criteria. The Commission, on the other hand, maintained that the decision was well-founded and complied with the statutory requirements.

The tribunal found that the Commission's decision-making process was thorough and aligned with the statutory mandates. The tribunal reviewed the evidence and noted that the Commission had considered all relevant factors. It was determined that the Commission's conclusion that the applicant was an Excluded Individual was supported by the evidence and the law. Consequently, the tribunal confirmed the Commission's decision, rejecting the applicant's challenge.

The tribunal's final orders were straightforward, confirming the Commission's decision to categorise the applicant as an Excluded Individual. The tribunal dismissed the application for review, upholding the Commission's decision as reasonable and in accordance with the law.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision of the QBCC to reject an application seeking a classification as a Permitted Individual is confirmed.

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.