Paddon v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2018] QCAT 100

CITATION:	Paddon v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QCAT 100
PARTIES:	Scott Raymond Paddon (Applicant)
v
Queensland Building and Construction Commission (Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER:	OCR102-17
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matters
HEARING DATE:	13 December 2017
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Paratz
DELIVERED ON:	5 April 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:	1. The Application to Extend Time filed on 18 October 2017 is dismissed. 2. The Application to Review a Decision filed on 30 May 2017 is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – BUILDERS – LICENCES AND REGISTRATION – OTHER MATTERS – where a plumber had been considered an excluded individual for both a bankruptcy event and a company event prior to amendments to the relevant legislation in 2014 – where the plumber was considered by the QBCC to be a permanently excluded individual – whether the amending legislation has retrospective effect PROCEDURE – MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS – OTHER MATTERS – where leave to extend time was required to proceed with an application to review a decision to refuse to categorise the plumber as a permitted individual Professional Engineers and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2014 (Qld) Queensland Building and Construction Commission and other Legislation Amendment Act 2014 (Qld) D’Arro v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2017] QCA 90 Jensen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2017] QCAT 232 Ogden Industries Pty Ltd v Lucas (1967) 116 CLR 537 Smith v Queensland Building Services Authority [2012] QCAT 58
APPEARANCES:
APPLICANT:	Ms M Campbell of Crouch and Lyndon Solicitors
RESPONDENT:	Mr M Robinson of Robinson Locke Litigation Lawyers

REASONS FOR DECISION

Scott Raymond Paddon (‘Mr Paddon’) was a licensed plumber. The Queensland Building and Construction Commission (‘QBCC’) made two separate decisions dated 6 July 2010 and 4 October 2010 categorising him as an excluded individual.
The effect of the two categorisations as an excluded individual was that Mr Paddon was permanently excluded from holding a licence as a contractor or nominee supervisor; or being a director, secretary, influential person or nominee of a company holding a contractor grade of licence; or being in partnership with a licensed contractor.
Mr Paddon filed an Application to review a decision in the Tribunal on

30 May 2017 seeking orders that an Internal Review decision of the QBCC made on 3 May 2017, which confirmed a decision of the QBCC made on 17 January 2017 to refuse to categorise Mr Paddon as a permitted individual, be set aside.
Directions were given on 5 September 2017 which substituted the decision to be reviewed in this proceeding to be a decision of the QBCC dated

6 July 2010 (which was a decision that the QBCC considered Mr Paddon to be an excluded individual because of a Bankruptcy event); and required Mr Paddon to file an Application to extend Time to bring that Review Application.
Mr Paddon filed an Application to Extend Time in the Tribunal on

18 October 2017. He sought that the time period for him to file an Application to review decisions of the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Paddon 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: [2018] QCAT 100
Decision Date: 5 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Paddon v Queensland Building and Construction Commission involved an application by the applicant, a licensed plumber, to have a decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission reviewed. The QBCC had decided that the applicant was permanently excluded from being a licensed building practitioner because of past bankruptcy and company-related events. The applicant sought to challenge this decision, arguing that the 2014 amendments to the Building Services Act 2011 (Qld) should be applied to his situation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the 2014 amendments to the Building Services Act had retrospective effect. The court was required to determine if these amendments could be applied to the applicant's situation, considering that he had been excluded from obtaining a license prior to the legislative changes. The applicant argued that if the amendments had retrospective effect, he should be categorised as a permitted individual and thus allowed to obtain a license.

The court found that the 2014 amendments did not have retrospective effect. It was held that the statutory changes did not apply to situations that arose prior to their enactment. The court further found that the applicant had not made out a case for extending the time to bring the review application. The application to extend time and the application to review the QBCC's decision were both dismissed.

The court dismissed both the application to extend time and the application to review the QBCC's decision, affirming that the 2014 amendments to the Building Services Act did not have retrospective effect. Consequently, the applicant remained permanently excluded from being a licensed building practitioner.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Application to Extend Time filed on 18 October 2017 is dismissed.

2. The Application to Review a Decision filed on 30 May 2017 is dismissed.

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.