Meyer v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2023] QCAT 24

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Meyer v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2023] QCAT 24

PARTIES:

GREGORY MEYER

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR201-21

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

17 January 2023

HEARING DATE:

14 July 2022

DATE FINAL SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED:

27 August 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Olding

ORDERS:

The decision under review is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – BUILDERS – LICENCES AND REGISTRATION – OTHER MATTERS – whether applicant satisfied experience requirements for Building Design Low Rise or Building Design Medium Rise licence – approach to requirement for two years’ experience of scope of works permitted by licence – nature of evidence required – where evidence and submissions insufficient to satisfy Tribunal experience requirements satisfied

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 16(1)(b)(i), s 16(7), s 31(1)(b)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20, s 24(1)

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld), s 12(1), Schedule 2, Part 11, Part 12

Dreyer v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2022] QCAT 276

Laidlaw v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QCAT 70

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

S Plasto, Acting Senior Lawyer, Queensland Building and Construction Commission

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is an application for review of the decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (“QBCC”) of 23 June 2021 to refuse to issue a contractor’s licence in the class of Building Design – low rise (“BDLR licence”) or Building Design – medium rise (“BDMR licence”) to the applicant, Mr Meyer.
The sole area of contention is that QBCC does not accept Mr Meyer has had the required minimum of two years’ experience in the applicable scope of building work or equivalent experience for either class of licence. QBCC accepts Mr Meyer satisfies the other requirements for each class of licence including technical qualifications and financial requirements.

Statutory requirements

Under s 31(1)(b) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (“QBCC Act”), it is a requirement for QBCC, and the Tribunal on review, to be satisfied an applicant for a contractor’s licence has “the experience required by regulation in relation to a licence of the relevant class”. In that regard, s 16(1)(b)(i) of the QBCC Act provides that an application for a licence must be accompanied by “the relevant documentary evidence” which is relevantly defined under s 16(7) as “documentary evidence, satisfactory to the commission, of . . . the applicant’s experience”.
Section 12(1) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld) (“the Regulation”) provides that the experience requirements are as stated in Schedule 2 of the Regulation for the relevant class of licence.
The experience requirements are tied to the scope of work (“SOW”) for the class of licence.
The SOW for a BDLR licence is specified in Part 11 of Schedule 2 as:
2 Scope of work
(1) Prepare plans and specifications for…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Meyer v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

Details

AGLC: Meyer v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2023] QCAT 24
Case: [2023] QCAT 24
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Meyer v Queensland Building and Construction Commission involves an application for judicial review of a decision by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) to refuse to issue a contractor’s licence to Mr Gregory Meyer. The QBCC had refused to issue either a Building Design Low Rise (BDLR) or Building Design Medium Rise (BDMR) licence to Mr Meyer, finding that he did not satisfy the experience requirements for either class of licence. The matter was heard by Member Olding of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) on 14 July 2022 and a decision was delivered on 17 January 2023.

The primary legal issue the QCAT had to decide was whether Mr Meyer had satisfied the statutory requirements for experience necessary to be granted a BDLR or BDMR licence. This required the QCAT to consider the evidence provided by Mr Meyer in relation to his experience and determine whether it was sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements. Under s 31(1)(b) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (QBCC Act), an applicant for a contractor’s licence must have “the experience required by regulation in relation to a licence of the relevant class.” The relevant experience requirements are set out in the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld). The QCAT had to determine whether the evidence provided by Mr Meyer was sufficient to establish that he had at least two years of experience across the scope of work for the relevant licence class.

The QCAT found that although Mr Meyer had substantial design experience, the evidence provided was not sufficient to demonstrate that he had obtained two years of experience across all of the classes of buildings referenced in the scope of work for a BDLR or BDMR licence. The QCAT noted that Mr Meyer had failed to provide detailed witness statements or other evidence setting out the time spent gaining experience in each of the relevant classes of buildings. The evidence provided was largely insufficient to enable the QCAT to be satisfied that the statutory requirements for experience had been met. The QCAT confirmed the decision of the QBCC refusing to issue a licence to Mr Meyer.

The QCAT’s decision confirms that the evidence provided by an applicant for a contractor’s licence must be sufficient to establish that the statutory requirements, including the relevant experience requirements, have been satisfied. The QCAT found that Mr Meyer had failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate he had obtained the requisite two years of experience across all of the classes of buildings referenced in the scope of work for a BDLR or BDMR licence. As a result, the QCAT confirmed the decision of the QBCC refusing to issue a licence to Mr Meyer.

Orders