Edrees v Commissioner for Fair Trading

Case [2021] NSWCATAD 32


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

  1. 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:

  1. 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.)

  2. 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].

  3. 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).

  4. On 17 July 2019 the Applicant lodged an application dated 12 July 2019 for administrative review of the Decision (Application) with the Tribunal.

  5. 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

Details
AGLC
Edrees v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2021] NSWCATAD 32
Case
[2021] NSWCATAD 32
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute before the court was between Edrees, a home builder, and the Commissioner for Fair Trading. The Commissioner had taken action against Edrees for allegedly contravening the Home Building Act 1989, specifically concerning the experience requirements for home builders. Edrees argued that his experience working overseas should be considered equivalent to the local requirements. The matter was brought before the court for a merits review.

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.