Goodellis v Queensland Building Services Authority (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 17 min read

CITATION:Goodellis v Queensland Building Services Authority (No 2) [2010] QCAT 481

PARTIES:

ANTHONY MICHAEL GOODELLIS

            V

QUEENSLAND BUILDING SERVICES AUTHORITY

APPLICATION NUMBER:

QR181-09

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:

8 April 2010

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Mr Paul Favell

DELIVERED ON:

28 September 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

The Tribunal orders that the decision of the Queensland Building Services Authority to refuse the application to be categorised as a Permitted Individual be confirmed

CATCHWORDS:

Application to be categorised as a permitted individual- refusal- review-S56AD(1) Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991

APPEARANCES AND REPRESENTATION:

Applicant: Mr Goodellis

Respondent: Mr Robinson; Solicitor: Forbes Dowling Lawyers

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

  1. On 7 July 2009 a decision was made by the Building Services Authority to refuse an application by the applicant to be categorised as a Permitted Individual pursuant to s56AD(1) of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (“the Act”).

Factual Background and Claims

  1. Glentone Australia Pty Ltd carried on the business of shop and office fitting.

  2. The relevant event occurred on 13 May 2009, it being the liquidation of Glentone Australia Pty Ltd (“GAPL”) as a result of a resolution of its members.  On that date, Christopher Cook and Morgan Lane were appointed as liquidators of Glentone Australia Pty Ltd.

  3. At that time and during the preceding year, the applicant was the director of GAPL.

  4. A historical company search from ASIC obtained by the respondent (exhibit 2) shows that:

    (a)The current directors, who were appointed on 29 March 2002, are the Applicant and Martin Cole;

    (b)The shareholders are:

·     Anthony & Joanne Goodellis – 1,000 A class shares

·     Martin & Linda Cole – 1,000 B class shares

·     Martin Stewart Cole – 1 ordinary share

·     The Applicant – 1 ordinary class share

  1. On 22 May 2009 the Building Services Authority sent the applicant a ‘Notice of Reasons for Proposed Cancellation of Licence’ (exhibit 3 to the application).

  2. The applicant applied to be categorised as a permitted individual citing ‘Economic conditions affecting industry’ as the main cause of the relevant event.

  3. On 7 July 2009 the Building Services Authority informed the applicant by letter that his application to be categorised as a permitted individual had failed. The BSA said that they were not satisfied that the applicant took all reasonable steps to avoid the circumstances that resulted in the relevant event.

  4. A statement of reasons dated 31 August 2009 was provided (exhibit 4).

  5. The applicant applied to the tribunal on 4 August 2009.

Applicant’s claim

  1. The applicant claimed that the company appointed Chris Nobbs and Mike Norton from ABC Business Coaching in 2006 to implement strategies and procedures. Their involvement was increased in 2007 to complete administrative control working together with managing director, Martin Cole. The applicant’s role was more hands on in production and site installation.

  2. The applicant contended that in or around June 2007 he expressed a desire to relinquish his directorship of and ownership of shares in the company. Martin Cole and Chris…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Goodellis v Queensland Building Services Authority (No 2) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2010] QCAT 481
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were the applicant, Mr. Goodellis, and the respondent, the Queensland Building Services Authority. The nature of the dispute was an application by the applicant to be categorised as a permitted individual under the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991. The case was heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT).

The legal issues that the QCAT was required to decide were whether the applicant met the eligibility criteria to be categorised as a permitted individual under the Act, and whether the respondent had acted lawfully and reasonably in refusing the application. The applicant argued that he met the eligibility criteria and that the respondent's decision was unreasonable, while the respondent maintained that the applicant did not meet the eligibility criteria and that its decision was lawful and reasonable.

The QCAT found that the applicant did not meet the eligibility criteria to be categorised as a permitted individual under the Act. The Tribunal considered the evidence and submissions from both parties and concluded that the respondent's decision to refuse the application was lawful and reasonable. The QCAT found that the applicant had not demonstrated that he had the necessary qualifications, experience, and character to be categorised as a permitted individual. The Tribunal also found that the respondent had followed the correct process in making its decision.

As a result of the QCAT's decision, the Tribunal ordered that the decision of the respondent to refuse the application be confirmed. The Tribunal found that the respondent had acted lawfully and reasonably in refusing the application, and that there were no grounds for the Tribunal to interfere with the respondent's decision. The applicant's application to be categorised as a permitted individual was therefore unsuccessful.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal orders that the decision of the Queensland Building Services Authority to refuse the application to be categorised as a Permitted Individual be confirmed

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.