Queensland Building Services Authority v Nortask Pty Ltd - [2011] QCAT 164

CITATION:

Queensland Building Services Authority v Nortask Pty Ltd [2011] QCAT 164

PARTIES:	Queensland Building Services Authority
v
Nortask Pty Ltd

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR210-10 QD002-07

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Ms Sandra G Deane, Member

DELIVERED ON:

12 April 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Nortask Pty Ltd will pay the Authority the sum of six thousand dollars ($6,000.00) by way of penalty on or before 4:00pm on 12 June 2011.

2. Nortask Pty Ltd will pay the Authority the sum of $1,500 by way of costs on or before 4:00pm on 12 June 2011.

CATCHWORDS:

Disciplinary proceedings – unlicensed contractor – application for costs allowed

Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991, s 90(1)(a)

Queensland Building Services Authority v Ventura Quality Painters Pty Ltd D179-96 [1996] QBT 136
Queensland Building Services Authority v Elgin Slack Property Company Pty Ltd [2005] QCCTB 20
Queensland Building Services Authority v Taylor [2005] QCCTB 70

Queensland Building Services Authority v Abu-Dabat [2006] QCCTB 32

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

These are disciplinary proceedings brought by the Queensland Building Services Authority (“the Authority”) against the Respondent, Nortask Pty Ltd (“Nortask”).

The applications consist of charges involving breaches of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (“the QBSA Act”).

Pursuant to directions made at Direction Hearings on 16 December 2010 and 7 March 2011 these applications are to be determined on the papers together in relation to the issue of penalty and costs as it was directed that proper grounds exist for taking disciplinary action against Nortask pursuant to section 90(1)(a) of the QBSA Act.

The Tribunal has received submissions on the penalty and costs issue from the Authority on 15 December 2010 and Nortask on 3 February 2011.

Background

On or about 30 March 2004 Nortask carried out certain work at 15 Mona Street, Mount Isa.

The Authority issued to Nortask Infringement Notice no 4391 dated 24 June 2006 in relation to an offence under section 42(9) of the QBSA Act, namely unlicensed contracting in respect of that work.

The penalty value of the Notice was $600.

Nortask disputed the offence by letter to the Authority dated 21 July 2006.

The Authority filed an application with the (former) Commercial and Consumer Tribunal (CCT) for disciplinary proceedings for breach of the QBSA Act on 4 January 2007 (QD002-07).

[10] On 12 March 2007 QD002-07 was adjourned to the registry pending the outcome of a claim by Nortask and its director, Mr Speziali in different CCT proceedings, BD576-05, which involved a claim for payment of moneys which arose out of the same facts as QD002-07. The BD576-05 proceedings have been finalised.

[11] On or about 13 November 2006 Nortask undertook the construction of a swimming pool, amenities building and associated works at 57 Jane Street, Dirranbandi. Nortask did not…

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 Nortask 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 164
Decision Date: 12 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queensland Building Services Authority brought proceedings against Nortask Pty Ltd, an unlicensed contractor, in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The Authority alleged that Nortask had engaged in various activities that constituted unlicensed building work, including the construction of a verandah and a carport, without the necessary permits and in breach of the Building Act 1975. The dispute centred on whether Nortask had indeed conducted unlicensed building work and, if so, whether it warranted a penalty and costs.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Nortask had contravened the Building Act by undertaking building work without a license. The Authority contended that the construction of the verandah and carport constituted building work that required a license under the Act. Nortask argued that the work did not fall within the definition of building work or, alternatively, that it was exempt from licensing requirements. The Tribunal had to determine the scope of "building work" as defined in the Act and whether the activities undertaken by Nortask fell within that definition.

In deciding the matter, the Tribunal found that the construction of the verandah and carport constituted building work as defined in the Building Act. The Tribunal held that the work involved significant structural elements and was not exempt from the licensing requirements. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that Nortask had contravened the Act by engaging in unlicensed building work. The Tribunal imposed a penalty of six thousand dollars and awarded costs of one thousand five hundred dollars to the Authority. The penalty and costs were to be paid by Nortask by a specified date.

The Tribunal's decision was grounded in the statutory provisions and the evidence presented regarding the nature of the work carried out by Nortask. By finding that the activities amounted to building work and that Nortask lacked the necessary license, the Tribunal upheld the Authority's case and imposed appropriate sanctions. The orders required Nortask to pay the penalty and costs to the Authority by the specified deadline.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Nortask Pty Ltd will pay the Authority the sum of six thousand dollars ($6,000.00) by way of penalty on or before 4:00pm on 12 June 2011.

2. Nortask Pty Ltd will pay the Authority the sum of $1,500 by way of costs on or before 4:00pm on 12 June 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.