Ericson v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

In the case of Ericson v Queensland Building and Construction Commission, the applicant, Ericson, appealed against the Queensland Building and Construction Commission's (QBCC) decision to suspend and subsequently cancel his building licence. This appeal journeyed through various tribunals and courts, culminating in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The core legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of statutory provisions and the procedural correctness of the tribunals' decisions.

The legal issues at the heart of the case involved the interpretation and application of sections 146 and 147 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), and the relevance of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (Qld). Additionally, the applicant argued that the tribunals failed to properly consider previous decisions of the Court of Appeal and took into account evidence that was not available to the original decision maker. The applicant also claimed that the tribunals did not adequately address the nature of their jurisdiction in reviewing the original decision.

The court found that the Appeal Tribunal of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCATA) had not adequately dealt with the jurisdictional issue of whether it was proceeding under s 146 or s 147 of the QCAT Act. Despite the Court of Appeal's earlier guidance on this matter, the tribunals had failed to clearly delineate their basis for proceeding. This oversight led to the Supreme Court allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to a differently constituted Appeal Tribunal for reconsideration. The tribunal, upon reconsideration, set aside the original QCAT decision and remitted the matter to the original member for reconsideration. However, the applicant argued that this tribunal also failed to properly apply the Court's previous decisions and took into account improper evidence.

ORDERS:
On 2 March 2016, the Supreme Court delivered its decision ex tempore. The Court refused leave to appeal and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application, to be assessed on the standard basis. The reasons for this order would be provided later.