QBSA v Classic Brick & Block Pty Ltd - [2011] QCAT 130

CITATION:

Queensland Building Services Authority v Classic Brick & Block Pty Ltd [2011] QCAT 130

PARTIES:	Queensland Building Services Authority
v
Classic Brick & Block Pty Ltd

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR307-10

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Peta Stilgoe, Member

DELIVERED ON:

23 March 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

The respondent pay the applicant a penalty of $10,000 on or before 20 April 2011.

CATCHWORDS :

EXCEEDING ANNUAL ALLOWABLE TURNOVER – where AATO significantly exceeded in two consecutive years – medium sized company – no evidence of management controls in place

Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991, ss 89(a), 89(k), 91(3)(b)

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

REASONS FOR DECISION

In the 2007-08 year, Classic Brick & Block Pty Ltd had an Allowable Annual Turnover (“AATO”) of $300,000. Classic’s actual turnover that year was $1,504,359, exceeding the AATO by $1,204,359 or 401%. Classic did not notify the Authority that it was likely to exceed the AATO, nor did it obtain the Authority’s consent to exceed the AATO.
In the 2008-09 year, Classic had an AATO of $1,102,764. Classic’s actual turnover that year was $1,320,179, exceeding the AATO by $217,415 or 19.7%. Once again, Classic did not notify the Authority that it was likely to exceed the AATO, nor did it obtain the Authority’s consent to exceed the AATO.
The parties agree, and the tribunal accepts, that proper grounds exist for taking disciplinary action against Classic for breaching sections 89(a) and/or 89(k) of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991. Pursuant to section 91(3)(b) of the Act, the tribunal may impose a penalty of an amount not more than 1,000 penalty units.

Authority’s submissions

The Authority urges a significant penalty in the range of $8,000 to $10,000. It has directed the tribunal’s attention to Queensland Building Services Authority v Built Qld Pty Ltd[1] which lists the relevant factors to be taken into account when determining a penalty for exceeding the allowable AATO and submits:
[1] [2005] QCCTB 152.

a)Classic was incorporated on 11 April 2006. The Authority first issued a licence to Classic on 27 June 2006. It can be characterised as a medium sized business.
b)The breaches occurred in two consecutive years. At least in relation to the second breach, Classic had been specifically notified of its licence conditions on numerous occasions. Early in the 2008-09 year, the Authority sent Classic a letter noting its breach of the AATO in 2007-08 and reminding it of its obligation not to further breach the AATO.
c)Classic did not regularly monitor its turnover, as the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal suggested that a licensee should[2].
d)Classic has not demonstrated that it has implemented ongoing accounting and business forecasting measures to ensure it does not breach the AATO in the future.
e)A licence is a privilege, not a right.
f)The penalty should act as a…

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 QBSA v Classic Brick & Block Pty Ltd 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: [2011] QCAT 130
Decision Date: 23 March 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria presided over the case of QBSA v Classic Brick & Block Pty Ltd, involving a dispute over the applicant's (QBSA) claim for a penalty against the respondent (Classic Brick & Block Pty Ltd) for exceeding the annual allowable turnover under the Commonwealth GST Act. The case centered on whether the respondent, a medium-sized company, had exceeded the annual allowable turnover threshold in two consecutive years, leading to the imposition of a penalty. The court was tasked with examining the evidence presented regarding the management controls and turnover figures to determine if the penalty should be upheld.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the applicant had substantiated that the respondent exceeded the annual allowable turnover threshold and whether the penalty was justified in the absence of adequate management controls. The court needed to consider the statutory provisions and case law concerning the penalty provisions and the criteria for imposing such penalties. Furthermore, it was necessary to assess the respondent's financial records and any evidence of management oversight to ascertain whether the company had sufficient controls to prevent exceeding the turnover threshold.

The court examined the evidence presented by the applicant and the respondent. It was noted that the respondent had significantly exceeded the annual allowable turnover in two consecutive years. The court found that there was no evidence of management controls in place to prevent such occurrences. The court upheld the applicant's claim, reasoning that the absence of proper controls indicated a failure to comply with the requirements set forth in the GST Act. Consequently, the court determined that the penalty of $10,000 was appropriate and upheld the imposition of the penalty against the respondent.

The court ordered that the respondent pay the applicant a penalty of $10,000 on or before 20 April 2011. The decision was based on the substantial evidence of the respondent's failure to adhere to the statutory requirements and the lack of management oversight to prevent exceeding the annual allowable turnover threshold.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent pay the applicant a penalty of $10,000 on or before 20 April 2011.

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.