Queensland Building and Construction Commission v Macdonald
Case
•
[2014] QCATA 353
•23 December 2014
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Queensland Building and Construction Commission v Macdonald [2014] QCATA 353
[2014] QCATA 353
23 December 2014
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Queensland Building and Construction Commission sought to exclude Mr. Macdonald from participating in the building and construction industry in Queensland. The Commission alleged that Mr. Macdonald was an excluded individual due to his involvement in criminal organisations. The dispute was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The legal issues that the Tribunal was required to decide were whether Mr. Macdonald was an excluded individual and whether his status as a shareholder of a company gave him actual influence or control over the company, or the potential to influence the company.
The Tribunal found that Mr. Macdonald was an excluded individual due to his involvement in criminal organisations. The Tribunal also found that his status as a shareholder of a company did not give him actual influence or control over the company, or the potential to influence the company. The Tribunal was satisfied that the company's directors and management exercised control over the company's affairs, and that Mr. Macdonald did not have the capacity to influence or control the company's decisions.
The Tribunal confirmed the Decision of The Tribunal dated 12 December 2013, which found that Mr. Macdonald was an excluded individual and that his status as a shareholder of a company did not give him actual influence or control over the company, or the potential to influence the company. The Tribunal held that the evidence did not establish that Mr. Macdonald had the capacity to influence or control the company's decisions. The Tribunal was satisfied that the company's directors and management exercised control over the company's affairs, and that Mr. Macdonald did not have the capacity to influence or control the company's decisions.
The Tribunal found that Mr. Macdonald was an excluded individual due to his involvement in criminal organisations. The Tribunal also found that his status as a shareholder of a company did not give him actual influence or control over the company, or the potential to influence the company. The Tribunal was satisfied that the company's directors and management exercised control over the company's affairs, and that Mr. Macdonald did not have the capacity to influence or control the company's decisions.
The Tribunal confirmed the Decision of The Tribunal dated 12 December 2013, which found that Mr. Macdonald was an excluded individual and that his status as a shareholder of a company did not give him actual influence or control over the company, or the potential to influence the company. The Tribunal held that the evidence did not establish that Mr. Macdonald had the capacity to influence or control the company's decisions. The Tribunal was satisfied that the company's directors and management exercised control over the company's affairs, and that Mr. Macdonald did not have the capacity to influence or control the company's decisions.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Corporate Law & Governance
Legal Concepts
-
Implied Terms
-
Unconscionable Conduct
-
Restitution
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Carmichael v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2016] QCAT 24
Cases Citing This Decision
2
Carmichael v Queensland Building and Construction Commission
[2016] QCAT 24
Carmichael v Queensland Building and Construction Commission
[2016] QCAT 24
Cases Cited
19
Statutory Material Cited
1
Macdonald v Queensland Building Services Commission
[2013] QCAT 702
McClintock v Queensland Building Services Authority
[2011] QCATA 310
QBSA v Meredith
[2013] QCATA 152