Grofski v Queensland Building Services Authority

CITATION: Grofski v Queensland Building Services Authority [2011] QCAT 611

PARTIES:	Stephen Francis Grofski (Applicant)
v
Queensland Building Services Authority (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:   OCR221-10

MATTER TYPE: Building matters

HEARING DATE: 25 November 2011

HEARD AT: Southport

DECISION OF: Susan Gardiner, Member

DELIVERED ON: 2 December 2011

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:      1.   The decision of the Authority dated 2 August 2010 refusing to categorise Mr Grofski as a permitted individual is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS: 

PERMITTED INDIVIDUAL – Where applicant left all accounting and bookkeeping to another director – whether applicant took all reasonable steps to avoid the liquidation of the company

Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991, s 56AD

Henley v QBSA [2010] QCAT 242 followed

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	Mr Stephen Grofski in person
RESPONDENT:	Mr Malcolm Robinson Solicitor represented the QBSA

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 2 August 2010, the Queensland Building Services Authority refused an application by Mr Stephen Grofski to be categorised as a permitted individual under s 56AD(1) of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991. 

1. Mr Grofski is a licensed builder, holding a license in the classes of carpentry, joinery and plastering solid. 

1. In May 2007 Mr Grofski and Mr Bruce Trollip incorporated Budget Render Pty Ltd.  Both men were joint directors and shareholders of Budget Render.  Mr Trollip was to be responsible for management and office duties, Mr Grofski had a “hands on” role to deal with supervision of staff and the building job sites. 

1. Both Mr Grofski and Mr Trollip gave evidence that in about January 2009, Mr Trollip wanted to take Budget Render in a different direction and it was agreed between the men that Mr Grofski would resign his directorship and separate from the company.  Mr Trollip was to take full control of Budget Render.  A heads of agreement was signed on 14 January 2009 to give effect to that agreement.

1. This heads of agreement records:

1. Mr Grofski and Mr Trollip conducted two businesses together, Budget Render and Pro X Paint Pty Ltd;

2. Both wanted to separate these businesses – Mr Grofski to take Pro X Paint and Mr Trollip to take Budget Render;

3. Budget Render owed money to Mr Grofski and upon that money being repaid, Mr Grofski would transfer his shares in Budget Render to Mr Trollip and Mr Trollip will transfer his shares in Pro X Paint to Mr Grofski. 

1. While the separation did occur, the money was never paid to Mr Grofski and the shares in Budget Render were never transferred.

1. Mr Grofski signed a letter dated 5 January 2009 resigning his directorship of Budget Render.  This resignation was accepted in a letter from Mr Trollip on 8 January 2009 but not registered by Mr Trollip with ASIC till 20 September 2009.  

1. At the time of his resignation in January 2009, Budget Render owed Mr Grofski $80,000 in wages and repayment of his contributions.  Mr Grofski says he decided Budget Render could pay this over time when it was in a position to do…