Dreyer v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2022] QCAT 276

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Dreyer v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2022] QCAT 276

PARTIES:

DEAN JASON DREYER

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR016-21

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

19 July 2022

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Cranwell

ORDERS:

The decision under review is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – BUILDERS – LICENCES AND REGISTRATION – OTHER MATTERS – where decision of Queensland Building and Construction Commission to refuse a building licence – where contents of written references not verified during reference checks – where applicant has not provided any further evidence – whether applicant has required experience

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 31, s 33

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld), Schedule 2

Laidlaw v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QCAT 70

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 14 April 2020, Mr Dreyer lodged an application for a ‘Builder – Low rise’ and ‘Builder – Medium rise’ licence with the Queensland Building and Construction Commisssion (‘QBCC’).
On 17 July 2020, the QBCC refused Mr Dreyer’s application for a licence on the basis that he had failed to provide requested information.
On 30 September 2020, Mr Dreyer lodged an application for review with the Tribunal.
I note at the outset that while Mr Dreyer has lodged submissions with the Tribunal on 31 January 2022 and 7 March 2022, he has lodged no further evidence.

History

Following the lodgement of Mr Dreyer’s licence application, the QBCC wrote to him on 15 May 2020. Mr Dreyer was asked to provide the following information within 21 days:
You must demonstrate a minimum of four (4) years’ experience for the class of licence you are applying for. The experience submitted on your previous application does not provide sufficient details to meet QBCC’s licensing requirements at the present time. Please provide specifics into your own roles and responsibilities as the site supervisor on each project. You will need to provide details on how you supervised and coordinated the various trades and disciplines on the building site from the set out to completion.
You should include a clear outline of what was being built, dates and time taken on the job, classifications, floor area and your specific roles and responsibilities with particular emphasis on the contractors and the other disciplines being supervised and coordinated on=site. Please format this additional experience on a job-by-job basis and forward it to QVCC in order for your application to proceed. Do not provide examples of work that was performed or undertaken prior to obtaining the technical qualification for this licence class, unless it was performed as an employee for an employer with the appropriate licence class.
Please refer to the enclosed factsheet Builder Medium Rise Experience Requirements.
In addition to the above, you must supply…

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.

Continue reading Dreyer v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

Details

AGLC: Dreyer v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2022] QCAT 276
Case: [2022] QCAT 276
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was called upon to review a decision by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) to refuse Dean Jason Dreyer's application for a 'Builder – Low rise' and 'Builder – Medium rise' licence. Dreyer had applied for these licences on 14 April 2020, but the QBCC rejected his application on 17 July 2020, stating that he had failed to provide the requested information. Dreyer subsequently lodged an application for review with QCAT on 30 September 2020. Dreyer submitted further written submissions on 31 January 2022 and 7 March 2022 but did not provide any additional evidence.

The Tribunal was required to consider whether Dreyer met the experience requirements set out in section 31(1)(b) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) and the relevant provisions in the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld). Dreyer had provided three written references in support of his licence application. However, the QBCC was unable to verify the contents of two of these references during reference checks, as the referees were either uncomfortable acting as referees or did not know Dreyer. Despite Dreyer's claims about the manner in which the reference checks were conducted, he did not provide any additional evidence to address these issues before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that Dreyer had not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy it that he met the experience requirements for the licences in question. The Tribunal noted that Dreyer could have obtained written statements from the referees in question, explaining their responses to the QBCC and confirming their earlier references, or obtained alternative references from other qualified individuals. However, Dreyer took neither of these steps. The Tribunal concluded that it was not satisfied that Dreyer met the requirements of section 31(1)(b) of the QBCC Act due to the failure of two out of three referees to verify the contents of their written references, and the absence of alternative references.

The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the QBCC to refuse Dreyer's application for the 'Builder – Low rise' and 'Builder – Medium rise' licences.

Orders