Grulovic v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

CITATION:	Grulovic v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QCAT 28
PARTIES:	Nikola Grulovic (Applicant)
v
Queensland Building and Construction Commission (Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER:	OCR288-17
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matters
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Steven Holzberger
DELIVERED ON:	9 January 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:	1. The application to stay a decision made on 21 November 2017 is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	APPLICATION FOR STAY – DECISION OF QBCC TO CANCEL A BUILDING LICENCE –whether it is desirable to stay the decision until the review is determined. Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991, s 48 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, s 22 Burch v Office of Fair Trading (No 2) [2016] QCAT 435 Crinis v Ray White Paradise Group [2016] QCATA 90 Cook’s Construction Pty Ltd v Stork Food Systems Pty Ltd [2008] QCA 322 Deputy Commissioner Stewart v Kennedy [2011] QCATA 254

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

APPLICANT:	Johanson Lawyers
RESPONDENT:	Holding Redlich

REASONS FOR DECISION

Nikola Grulovic has applied for a review of a decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (“QBCC”) made on 20 November 2017 to suspend its licence pursuant to section 48(j) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (“QBCC Act”). He has also applied for a stay of that decision pending determination of the review application.
QBCC opposes the stay.
The decision to suspend Mr Grulovic’s licence issued concurrently with a decision to suspend the licence of My Home Builders Qld Pty Ltd (My Home). Mr Grulovic is the sole director and shareholder of My Home.
My Home has applied for a review of that decision and a stay of its operation until a decision on the review application is made.
Both stay applications were determined on the papers on 9 January 2018. I determined that both should be refused. My reasons for decision in respect of My Home’s stay application are attached. Those reasons form the basis for refusal of the stay. My additional reasons and comments are set out below.
The material relied on by My Home is the review application and stay application filed on 15 December 2017, and an affidavit of its Mr Grulovic sworn on 27 November 2017. The material is in effect the same as the material relied on by My Home in its stay application.
QBCC relies on statements of Michelle Lockton dated 15 December 2017 and Michelle Cummins dated 14 December 2017 and the written submissions of its lawyers, Holding Redlich dated 15 December 2017. The statements are the same as the statements relied on in the My Home stay application. One set of submissions was lodged in respect of both stay applications.
QBCC says in effect that the circumstances which lead to the suspension of My Home’s licence demonstrate that Mr Grulovic is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence or to exercise control or influence over a company that holds a licence.
It says the stay should be refused because the review application has poor prospects of success, a stay is not in the public interest and Mr Grulovic has failed to identify any factors which justify the stay.
It appears to be accepted by both parties that the decision in respect of both the review and stay applications will follow the decision in the My Home applications. In circumstances where Mr Grulovic relies on material which reflects the material relied on in the My Home stay application that is inevitable.
I am not satisfied that Mr Grulovic has an inarguable case having regard to the early stage of the proceedings and the complexity of some of the matters raised against My Home.
However the licencing provisions of the QBCC Act are protective of the public. The public interest, for the reasons set out in the My Home decision favours refusal of the stay. There is nothing in Mr Grulovic’s material which tips the balance of convenience in his favour.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Grulovic v Queensland Building and Construction Commission involves a dispute between the applicant, Grulovic, and the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) regarding the cancellation of a building licence. The case was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The primary issue before the tribunal was whether it was desirable to stay the QBCC’s decision to cancel Grulovic's building licence until the review of that decision was determined. The applicant argued that a stay would be desirable to avoid prejudice to his business operations, whereas the QBCC contended that a stay would not be in the public interest.

The tribunal considered the criteria for granting a stay, which include the balance of convenience and the public interest. The applicant needed to demonstrate significant hardship if the stay was not granted, while the QBCC had to show that the public interest would be served by not granting a stay. The tribunal found that the applicant's arguments did not sufficiently establish that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, particularly given the public interest in upholding the integrity of the licensing process and the potential harm to the public if unlicensed building work was performed. The tribunal concluded that the public interest in ensuring compliance with licensing requirements outweighed any potential hardship to the applicant’s business.

Accordingly, the tribunal refused the application to stay the decision to cancel the building licence. The tribunal held that there was no compelling reason to grant a stay that would permit the applicant to continue operating without a valid licence, given the risk to public safety and the importance of maintaining regulatory standards. The tribunal's decision was based on a careful assessment of the evidence and the legal principles governing the granting of stays in administrative review proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established