Phillips v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2021] QCAT 159

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Phillips v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCAT 159

PARTIES: DENIS PHILLIPS

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR374-17

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

24 March 2021

HEARING DATE:

17 August 2018

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Holzberger

ORDERS:

The decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission made on 7 November 2017 is confirmed and the review application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – BUILDERS – LICENCES AND REGISTRATION – QUALIFICATIONS – where application made for builder low rise licence – whether requisite two year period of experience has accrued

Queensland Civil and Administrative TribunalAct 2009 (Qld), s 20

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 3(a)(i), s 31(1)(b)

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

C Hill, in house solicitor for the Queensland Building and Construction Commission

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Phillips has applied to the tribunal for a review of an internal review decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (the Commission) dated 7 November 2017 to decline his builder low rise licence application.
The review is a fresh hearing on the merits. Its purpose is to produce the correct and preferable decision. The tribunal may confirm or amend the decision, set the decision aside and substitute its own, or set the decision aside and return the matter to the decision maker for reconsideration.[1]
[1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20.
Section 31(1) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (QBCC Act) provides that a person is entitled to a contractor’s licence if the Commission is satisfied that the person complies with all of the eight (8) criteria set out in that section.
It is accepted by the original decision maker, the internal review decision maker and the tribunal is satisfied that the material provided by Mr Phillips satisfies seven (7) of those criteria.
The issue in dispute in these proceedings is whether Mr Phillips has provided sufficient evidence that he has the qualifications and experience required by regulation in relation to the builder low rise licence.[2]
[2]Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 31(1)(b).
Schedule 2 Part 4 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation (the regulations) relevantly provides:
The experience requirements are the following –
(a) for a person who has a technical qualification required under Schedule 2 part 3 or 16 – 2 years experience in –
(i)the scope of work for the class; or
(ii)other work the commission is satisfied is at least equivalent to experience in the scope of work in the class…[3]
[3]It is accepted that Mr Phillips holds a requisite carpentry qualification.
To satisfy the experience requirements Mr Phillips provided details of his employment as a site manager and carpenter with That Builder Pty Ltd (February 2009 to November 2009), as a carpenter/supervisor/department manager with Fallon Solutions Pty Ltd (for an unspecified period but for the purposes of the application, August…

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 Phillips v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

Details

AGLC: Phillips v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCAT 159
Case: [2021] QCAT 159
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Phillips v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCAT 159 involved Denis Phillips, the applicant, who sought a review of a decision by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (the Commission) to decline his application for a builder low rise licence. The respondent, the Commission, was represented by an in-house solicitor. The tribunal member Holzberger delivered the decision on 24 March 2021, confirming the Commission's decision and dismissing the review application. The legal issues before the tribunal were whether the applicant had satisfied the requisite experience requirements for the licence and if the evidence provided was sufficient to meet the necessary standards under the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) and related regulations.

The tribunal considered the eight criteria set out in Section 31(1) of the QBCC Act, with it being uncontested that the applicant satisfied seven of those criteria. The central issue was whether the applicant had provided sufficient evidence of the qualifications and experience required by regulation, specifically the two-year period of experience in the scope of work for the class. The tribunal found that the applicant's roles and responsibilities during his employment with That Builder Pty Ltd and Fallon Solutions Pty Ltd did not clearly demonstrate experience in the scope of work for building low rise class. Even if those roles were considered equivalent, they did not amount to the required two years of experience. The applicant also relied on his employment with Ashley Sparks, but the tribunal found that the evidence was not clear enough to determine what work the applicant did and when, thus failing to meet the necessary standards.

The tribunal concluded that the experience requirement must be demonstrated by clear and detailed evidence of the work undertaken, including the roles and responsibilities during the relevant period. The tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant's evidence met these requirements, and the decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission was confirmed. The tribunal dismissed the review application, and the original decision was upheld.

Orders