Fogg v QBSA

CITATION: Fogg v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QCAT 203

PARTIES:	Mr Gordon Fogg
v
Queensland Building Services Authority

APPLICATION NUMBER:   QR092-09     

MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:     29 March 2010

HEARD AT:  BRISBANE 

DECISION OF: K O'Callaghan

DELIVERED ON: 10 May 2010

DELIVERED AT:      BRISBANE 

ORDERS MADE: The decision of the Respondent dated 5 June 2008 refusing to categorise the Applicants as permitted individuals be set aside and substituted with a decision that the applicants be categorised as permitted individuals for the relevant event.

CATCHWORDS :  Application to review decision by the Authority not to categorise as permitted individuals.  Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 section 56AD

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION:

APPLICANT:	Mr Gordon Fogg represented by Mr Thompson of Counsel
RESPONDENT:	Queensland Building Services Authority represented by Mr Robinson (Solicitor)

Introduction

1. These were applications bought by the Applicants to review a decision of the Queensland Building Services Authority (“The Authority”) to refuse to categorise them as “permitted individuals” for a relevant event.

1. The applications were heard concurrently as all three (3) involved the respective Applicants involvement in the company Speedy Build Homes Pty Ltd (“SBH”).  At the hearing I ordered that the evidence given in one (1) matter be taken be evidence given in all three (3) applications.

2. The relevant event was the appointment of Jonathon Paul McLeod as voluntary administrator for SBH.

3. Following the placement of SBH into voluntary administration, the Authority gave notice to the Applicants on 5 June 2008 that pursuant section 56C of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act (“QBSA Act”) they were considered as excluded individuals.

4. The Applicants applied to become permitted individuals under section 56AD (8) of the QBSA Act. The Authority refused the request and that is the decision being reviewed.

Background

1. It is relevant to set out the background of the establishment and the history of the operation of SBH.

2. The common denominator between the Applicants in the establishment of SBH was a Mr Robert Trask.  Mr Trask, together with his brother David Trask, control the Trask Development Corporation.  The corporation is engaged in a number of businesses.  The establishment of SBH was one (1).

3. The Applicant Mr Hallet is a solicitor and had acted for a person by the name of Mr Mike Veverka (who is also known as Mr Mike Rosch) in the 1990’s.

4. Mr Veverka approached Mr Hallet in 2006 indicating he had developed intellectual property concerning tilt slab construction.  Mr Hallet introduced Mr Veverka to Mr Trask and together they formulated a venture whereby they would research tilt slab technology and build low cost housing using the technology.

10. The Applicant Mr Vicca had been engaged by the Trask Development Corporation as its external Compliance Accountant.  The internal accounting for the company was managed by the Applicant Mr Fogg.

11. Mr Vicca gave evidence that the arrangements for the project were as follows:-

(a)PTR License Corporation would hold the intellectual property in the tilt slab technology:

(b)SBH would hold the QBSA license and undertake the…