Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Edrees v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2021] NSWCATAD 32 Hearing dates: 16 December 2019, 2 June and 10 July 2020 Date of orders: 16 February 2021 Decision date: 16 February 2021 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: N S Isenberg RFD, Senior Member Decision: (1) The decision under review is set aside.
(2) In substitution for that decision, the Tribunal grants the applicant an individual endorsed contractor licence in the category “general building work” under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW)
(3) The Respondent is to effect the grant of the individual endorsed contractor licence to the Applicant within 14 days of publication of these reasons.
Catchwords: MERITS REVIEW – building and construction – home building - Home Building Act 1989 - experience – working overseas - Instrument.
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Home Building Act 1989 (NSW)
Licensing and Registration (Uniform Procedures) Act 2002 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Briggs v Commissioner for Fair Trading Department of Finance, Services and Innovation [2018] NSWCATOD 175
Commissioner of Fair Trading, Office of Finance and Services, NSW Fair Trading v Kassem [2015] NSWCATAP 173
Ngo v Commissioner of Fair Trading, Department of Finance, Services and Innovation [2019] NSWCATOD 103
Shoobridge v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2015] NSWCATOD 42
Texts Cited: None cited
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ramy Mohamed Ahmed Mohamed Edrees (Applicant)
Commissioner for Fair Trading (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Nexus Law Group (Applicant)
Department of Customer Service (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/00221645
Reasons for decision
Background
-
The parties substantially agree (including in their respective submissions, the Applicant at [6]-[10] in AS and the Respondent at [2.1]-[2.6] in RS) that the background to the dispute is as follows:
On 18 April 2019, the Applicant (from time to time referred to as Mr Edrees) lodged with the Respondent an application for an individual contractor licence (Q) in the category “general building work” under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) (HB Act) (R1 at [6] – [11] and attachments.)
On 23 May 2019 the Respondent emailed to Mr Edrees a notice purportedly pursuant to s 14 of the Licensing and Registration (Uniform Procedures) Act 2002 (NSW) (LRUP) (the s14 Notice) requiring Mr Edrees to provide certain information using an enclosed referee statement form, informing Mr Edrees that “incomplete statement forms cannot be considered” and “failure to comply with the requirements of the notice within 14 days may result in refusal of the application without dealing with it any further”: RS [131] – [132].
On 26 June 2019 the Respondent refused the application, purportedly in accordance with ss14(1) and 14(3) of LRUP for failing to provide information specified in the s 14 Notice (R1/182-185) (Decision).
On 17 July 2019 the Applicant lodged an application dated 12 July 2019 for administrative review of the Decision (Application) with the Tribunal.
On 20 August 2019 the Tribunal, by consent, held that…
Continue reading Edrees v Commissioner for Fair Trading
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Edrees v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2021] NSWCATAD 32
- Case
- [2021] NSWCATAD 32
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether Edrees' overseas experience could be regarded as equivalent to the local experience required by the Home Building Act 1989 and the relevant Instrument. This involved interpreting the statutory provisions and assessing the equivalence of Edrees' overseas experience to the domestic standards. The court had to determine if the Commissioner's decision to deny equivalence was justified under the Act and the Instrument.
The court carefully examined the statutory language and the relevant regulatory framework. It found that the Home Building Act 1989 did not explicitly address the recognition of overseas experience. The court further considered the Instrument, which provided guidelines for assessing experience but did not detail a process for evaluating overseas qualifications. The court concluded that while the Commissioner had a duty to ensure compliance with the Act, the lack of specific provisions regarding overseas experience meant that the Commissioner's decision to deny equivalence was not supported by the statutory framework. Therefore, the court overturned the Commissioner's decision.
The court ordered that the Commissioner's decision to deny equivalence of Edrees' overseas experience was quashed. The court mandated that the Commissioner reconsider Edrees' application for registration under the Home Building Act 1989, taking into account the overseas experience and any relevant equivalence assessments.
Orders
Orders of the court
).
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.