Mar v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

Link copied
Case Copied 37 min read

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Mar v Queensland Building & Construction Commission [2017] QDC 304

PARTIES:

ZLATKO MAR
(Appellant)

QUEENSLAND BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

876/17

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Caboolture

DELIVERED ON:

15 December 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 October 2017 and 8 December 2017

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

1.        Appeal granted.

2.        Order that a default period of two months’ imprisonment be imposed in respect of each of the following restitution orders (for which no default period was imposed in the Magistrates Court):

           Roberts  $45,618.75

           Heckenberg               $70,899.89

           Watkins  $37,125.00

           Taplin  $28,500

           Grainger  $43,500

3.        Otherwise confirm the orders made by the learned magistrate at Caboolture on 13 February, 2017.

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION:

CASES:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – where the appellant pleaded guilty before the learned magistrate to 33 offences under the Queensland Building and Construction Act 1991 – where the learned magistrate imposed a global fine of $100,000 in respect of all 33 offences, legal costs of $4,446.25 (in default two years imprisonment for fine and costs) and six restitution orders totalling $225,643.64 – the fine, legal costs and restitution orders were all referred to the State Penalties Enforcement Registry for recovery action – whether the sentence is manifestly excessive – whether the restitution that was ordered is unfair

Justices Act 1886 ss. 222E, 223, 224

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, ss. 5, 5A, 35, 36, 37, 48, 181B

Penalties and Sentences Regulation 2005, s. 3

State Penalties Enforcement Act1999, ss. 9, 34, 36, 37, 41, 52, 52A, 63, 119, 120, 155, schedule 2

State Penalties Enforcement Regulation 2014 ss. 24, 25

Queensland Building and Construction Act 1991, ss. 42, 51, Schedule 1B

Forrest v Commissioner of Police [2017] QCA 132

McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCA 255

R v Matauaina [2011] QCA 344

COUNSEL:

L Menolotto for the appellant

C Minnery for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Towns Wilson Lawyers for the appellant

Queensland & Building Construction Commission for the respondent

  1. The appellant pleaded guilty before the learned magistrate at the Caboolture Magistrates Court on 13 February 2017 to 33 offences pursuant to the Queensland Building and Construction Act 1991 (Qld) ‘QBCCA’, as follows:

Counts Charges Legislation
10 Unlawfully carrying out building work QBCCA 1991 s.42(1)
6 Improper use of a license card, certificate, number or PIN QBCCA 1991 s.51(2)
3 Failing to provide a commencement notice QBCCA 1991 Schedule 1B s.16
3 Failing to provide a copy of the Consumer Building Code QBCCA Schedule 1B s.18
6 Commencing services before completing the requirements of a regulated contract QBCCA Schedule 1B s.30
5 Demanding or receiving a deposit in excess of the allowed amount for a regulated 1 or regulated 2 contract QBCCA Schedule 1B s.33.
  1. The sentence imposed was as follows:

(1)   Global fine for all offences - $100,000; and

(2)   Legal costs $4,446.25 (in default two years imprisonment for fine and costs);

(3)   Restitution:

(a)…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mar v Queensland Building and Construction Commission 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
[2017] QDC 304
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an appeal against sentence imposed by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission. The appellant had pleaded guilty to 33 offences under the Building and Construction Act 1991, and the magistrate imposed a global fine of $100,000, legal costs of $4,446.25, and six restitution orders totalling $225,643.64. The fine, legal costs, and restitution orders were referred to the State Penalties Enforcement Registry for recovery action. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the restitution orders were unfair.

The primary legal issue was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the restitution orders were unfair. The court considered the principles of sentencing and the appropriate weight to be given to restitution. It also examined whether the fine and costs imposed were appropriate in the circumstances.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive but acknowledged that the restitution orders could have been more clearly articulated. The court ordered a default period of two months' imprisonment for each of the specified restitution orders, which had not been imposed in the Magistrates Court. The court confirmed the other orders made by the magistrate. This decision ensured that the restitution orders were enforceable and provided clarity regarding the penalties imposed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal granted.

2. Order that a default period of two months’ imprisonment be imposed in respect of each of the following restitution orders (for which no default period was imposed in the Magistrates Court):

Roberts $45,618.75

Heckenberg $70,899.89

Watkins $37,125.00

Taplin $28,500

Grainger $43,500

3. Otherwise confirm the orders made by the learned magistrate at Caboolture on 13 February, 2017.

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.