Queensland Building and Construction Commission v Arthurs - [2014] QCA 307

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Queensland Building and Construction Commission v Arthurs [2014] QCA 307

PARTIES:

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION
(applicant)
v
MICHAEL JAMES ARTHURS
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 5784 of 2014
QCAT No 349 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act

ORIGINATING COURT:

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

28 November 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 November 2014

JUDGES:

Holmes and Fraser JJA and McMeekin J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – WHEN APPEAL LIES – BY LEAVE OF COURT – GENERALLY – where the respondent was a registered builder – where the respondent was a shareholder in a company that had a liquidator appointed – where the applicant cancelled the respondent’s builder’s license because they determined him to be an “excluded individual” – where the respondent’s license was reinstated by the Appeal Tribunal of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal – where leave to appeal is only open on questions of law and by leave of the Court – where the applicant contends that Appeal Tribunal misconstrued the definition of “influential person” – whether an error of law has occurred

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 53, s 233, s 461, s 491
Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 3, s 56AC
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 150

Arthurs v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2014] QCATA 155, cited
Bagumya v Kakwano [2010] NSWSC 600, cited
Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow [1956] AC 14, cited
Robb v Tunio [2014] QCA 127, cited

COUNSEL:

R Anderson for the applicant
L D Bowden for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Robinson Locke for the applicant
Quinn and Scattini for the respondent

HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons of McMeekin J and the order he proposes.

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of McMeekin J and the order proposed by his Honour.

McMEEKIN J: A liquidator was appointed to MTS Developments Pty Ltd on 16 September 2011. Mr Arthurs, the respondent here, was a 50 per cent shareholder in that company. He was also a registered builder – he held a licence under Part 3 of the Queensland Building Construction and Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (“the Act”).[1] The appointment of the liquidator triggered the “excluded individual” provisions of s 56AC of the Act, an outcome apparently not anticipated by Mr Arthurs.
[1]Formerly the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (Qld).

The Queensland Building and Construction Commission – “QBCC”[2] - determined that Mr Arthurs was an “excluded individual for the relevant company event” within the meaning of ss 56AC(4) of the Act, the event being the appointment of the liquidator to MTS Developments Pty Ltd. The effect of the finding that Mr…

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 Queensland Building and Construction Commission v Arthurs 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: [2014] QCA 307
Decision Date: 28 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Queensland Building and Construction Commission v Arthurs involved the Queensland Building and Construction Commission, the appellant, and Arthurs, the respondent. The dispute arose when the Commission cancelled Arthurs' builder's license due to his classification as an "excluded individual." Arthurs, who was also a shareholder in a company under liquidation, had his license reinstated by the Appeal Tribunal of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The Commission sought leave to appeal this decision, arguing that the Appeal Tribunal had misconstrued the definition of "influential person," which is critical to the determination of an "excluded individual."

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Appeal Tribunal had made an error of law in interpreting the definition of "influential person." The Commission contended that the Tribunal's interpretation was incorrect, and this misconstruction led to the wrongful reinstatement of Arthurs' license. The court had to determine whether the Appeal Tribunal's decision constituted an error of law that warranted a new trial or appeal. The Commission's application for leave to appeal hinged on establishing that such an error had indeed occurred.

The court considered the narrow grounds on which leave to appeal could be granted, which are limited to questions of law and require leave of the Court. After thorough examination, the court found that the Appeal Tribunal's interpretation of "influential person" did not constitute an error of law. The court concluded that the Appeal Tribunal had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions, and therefore, the Commission's application for leave to appeal was refused. The reinstatement of Arthurs' license by the Appeal Tribunal was upheld as legally sound.

The court's decision was definitive in dismissing the appeal, and no further appeal was permitted. The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal was refused, and Arthurs' builder's license remained reinstated as determined by the Appeal Tribunal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal refused.

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.

CITATION:	Queensland Building and Construction Commission v Arthurs [2014] QCA 307
PARTIES:	QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION (applicant) v MICHAEL JAMES ARTHURS (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 5784 of 2014 QCAT No 349 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act
ORIGINATING COURT:	Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	28 November 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 November 2014
JUDGES:	Holmes and Fraser JJA and McMeekin J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal refused.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – WHEN APPEAL LIES – BY LEAVE OF COURT – GENERALLY – where the respondent was a registered builder – where the respondent was a shareholder in a company that had a liquidator appointed – where the applicant cancelled the respondent’s builder’s license because they determined him to be an “excluded individual” – where the respondent’s license was reinstated by the Appeal Tribunal of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal – where leave to appeal is only open on questions of law and by leave of the Court – where the applicant contends that Appeal Tribunal misconstrued the definition of “influential person” – whether an error of law has occurred Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 53, s 233, s 461, s 491 Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 3, s 56AC Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 150 Arthurs v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2014] QCATA 155, cited Bagumya v Kakwano [2010] NSWSC 600, cited Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow [1956] AC 14, cited Robb v Tunio [2014] QCA 127, cited
COUNSEL:	R Anderson for the applicant L D Bowden for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Robinson Locke for the applicant Quinn and Scattini for the respondent