Namour v Queensland Building Services Authority

The appellant, Mr Namour, was a director of a building company that had its licence cancelled by the respondent, the Queensland Building Services Authority. As a result, the company could not complete several building contracts, leading the property owners to make claims against the respondent under the statutory insurance scheme. The respondent then sought to recover the amounts paid to the property owners from Mr Namour as a debt under sections 71(1) and 111C of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991. The respondent was granted summary judgment, and Mr Namour appealed, arguing that he was not at fault for the company's inability to complete the contracts, that the property owners' claims were not valid under the insurance scheme, and that the correctness of the licence cancellation was not justiciable in the recovery proceedings. Additionally, Mr Namour contended that the primary judge erred in summarily determining the quantum of the debt to be paid and that the amount of the payments made under the insurance scheme needed to be reasonable for those amounts to be recoverable against him.

The court considered whether Mr Namour needed to be at fault to be liable for the debts, whether the property owners' claims were valid under the insurance scheme if the licence cancellation was wrongful, and whether the correctness of the licence cancellation was justiciable in the recovery proceedings. The court also examined whether the Act required the amount of the payments made under the insurance scheme to be reasonable to be recoverable against Mr Namour, and whether summary judgment should have been refused due to insufficient proof of the quantum of the debt. The court found that Mr Namour was not required to be at fault, but that the property owners' claims were valid under the insurance scheme, regardless of the correctness of the licence cancellation. Furthermore, the court held that the primary judge did not err in summarily determining the quantum of the debt, and that the amount of the payments made under the insurance scheme did not need to be reasonable for those amounts to be recoverable against Mr Namour.

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The court held that Mr Namour was liable for the debts under the statutory insurance scheme, despite not being at fault, and that the property owners' claims were valid under the insurance scheme. The court also found that the correctness of the licence cancellation was not justiciable in the recovery proceedings, and that the primary judge did not err in summarily determining the quantum of the debt. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the summary judgment entered against Mr Namour was upheld.