Queensland Building Services Authority v Chandra & Anor - [2013] QCAT 628

CITATION:

Queensland Building Services Authority v Chandra & Anor [2013] QCAT 628

PARTIES:	Queensland Building Services Authority (Applicant)
v
Mr Suresh Chandra (Respondent) And Building Approval And Inspection Consultants Pty Ltd

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR055-12

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

14 October 2013

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member King-Scott

DELIVERED ON:

22 November 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Mr Chandra never be re-licensed as a building certifier by the QBSA;

2. Mr Chandra pay a penalty to the QBSA in the amount of $10,000 by 4.00 pm on 28 March 2014; and

3. Mr Chandra pay the complainant, Mr Niessl, the sum of $44,522.31, being the amount required to complete the work by 4.00 pm on 28 March 2014;

4. Mr Chandra pay the complainant, Mr Niessl, interest of $7,500.00 on the said sum by 4.00 pm on 28 March 2014.

CATCHWORDS:

OCCUPATIONAL REGULATIONAL MATTER – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – FORMER BUILDING CERTIFIER where retrospectively certified conversion of non habitable space (garage) to habitable space (bedrooms) without carrying out proper inspection or satisfying himself of all relevant facts. Water incursion causing damage and loss of amenity because of failure to waterproof walls. Respondent incompetent and lacking integrity. Repeat offender, fine inadequate, protection of the public warranted that he not hold licence again.

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:

Mr S Formby of counsel for the Applicant

RESPONDENT:

Mr Greg solicitor for the Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is a Disciplinary proceeding conducted pursuant to s 208 of the Building Act 1975. The Applicant is the Queensland Building Services Authority (“QBSA”), the Respondent, Suresh Chandra, was, at the time, a licensed private Certifier.
Mr Richard Anthony Niessl and his wife purchased a house at 71 Grays Road, Gaythorne in May 2008. It was a 5-bedroom renovated Queensland-style house.
Mr Niessl and his wife were informed by the real estate agent who sold the house to them that all renovations were completely certified. In addition, he was provided with approved plans for the works and inspection reports certified by Mr Chandra, confirming the renovations had been approved. Prior to the 2004 renovations, the lower storey had comprised a bedroom, laundry, rumpus room and garage. In 2004, the renovations converted the garage area into two bedrooms with a walk-in wardrobe.
Mr Chandra was a licensed building certifier under the Building Act 1975. He was approached in 2005 by the former owner of the property to retrospectively certify the 2004 renovations. Mr Chandra accepted the engagement and completed a Development Application Form as required by IDAS.[1] Mr Chandra says that the work he was required to inspect were only cosmetic items. The final inspection was non-invasive and the walls had been sheeted and the floors carpeted. As will appear later in these reasons what Mr Chandra was required to certify was the satisfaction of the requirements of the Building Act 1975 and regulations thereunder for the conversion of a non habitable space (the garage) to a habitable space (the bedrooms), and…

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 Services Authority v Chandra & Anor 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: [2013] QCAT 628
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Queensland Building Services Authority v Chandra [2013] QCAT 628, the Applicant, the Queensland Building Services Authority, commenced disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent, Mr Suresh Chandra, a former private certifier. The Applicant submitted that Mr Chandra had engaged in professional misconduct by certifying works without ensuring they complied with the Building Act 1975 and associated regulations. The Respondent did not contest the allegations made against him. The Court found that Mr Chandra's obligations went beyond simply inspecting the internal works of the property, and included ensuring the conversion of a Class 10a to a Class 1a complied with all applicable building laws, regulations, and codes. The Court found that Mr Chandra's conduct was incompetent and lacking in integrity, and compromised the amenity of Mr Niessl's property for some considerable time and put Mr Niessl and his family to considerable inconvenience and expense. The Court found there were proper grounds for taking disciplinary action against Mr Chandra. The Court ordered that Mr Chandra never be re-licensed as a building certifier by the QBSA, pay a penalty to the QBSA in the amount of $10,000, pay the complainant, Mr Niessl, the sum of $44,522.31, and pay interest of $7,500 on the said sum.

Orders