Queensland Building Services Authority v Ward Construction Pty Ltd - [2011] QCAT 289

CITATION:

Queensland Building Services Authority v Ward Construction Pty Ltd [2011] QCAT 289

PARTIES:	Queensland Building Services Authority
v
Ward Construction Pty Ltd

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR031-11

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Mr Ron Joachim, Member

DELIVERED ON:

21 June 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The respondent pay the Authority the penalty sum in the amount of $6,000 within 60 days.

2. The respondent pay the Authority’s costs of $500 within 14 days.

CATCHWORDS:

OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION – QUEENSLAND BUILDING SERVICES AUTHORITY – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – where respondent accepted proper grounds existed for disciplinary action – where respondent builder given 2 directions to rectify – where builder failed to rectify – where deterrent necessary – where builder surrendered building license – where order made as to costs

Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991, ss 72(10), 89(j), 91
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2000, s 102

Queensland Building Services Authority v Brian Federick Blach (unrep DO33/92, 13 April 1993)
Queensland Building Services Authority v Hipwood Constructions Pty Ltd [2007] QCCT B147
Queensland Building Services Authority v Kalona Pty Ltd [2010] QCAT OCR036-10
Queensland Building Services Authority v Lazar [2008] QCCT B30
Queensland Building Services Authority v Lindenberg [2004] CCT L 009-04
Queensland Building Services Authority v Taylor, R [2005] QCCT B70
Queensland Building Services Authority v T&T Building Pty Ltd [2008] CCT QD 009-08

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

On the papers.

REASONS FOR DECISION

In February 2011 the Queensland Building Services Authority (“the Authority”) applied to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings to be taken against Ward Construction Pty Ltd.

The particulars of the offences alleged against Ward Constructions are contained in an attachment to the application. In summary, in October 2008 the Authority received a complaint from Mr and Mrs Pope regarding alleged defective work carried out by Ward Construction at their home at 30 Beatrice Street, Bardon.

An inspection was subsequently carried out at the property by Mr Bruce Haynes, a Building Inspector of the Authority, who identified 16 defective and incomplete items at the property.

Subsequently a direction dated 23 December 2008 to rectify and or complete was issued to Ward Construction requiring Ward to rectify these 16 defective items in 35 days. As at 27 January 2009 Ward had failed to rectify the items.

A second direction to rectify and or complete was issued on 3 July 2009 to rectify 3 defective items within 28 days. As at 31 July Ward had failed to rectify the items.

The Authority sought orders that proper grounds existed for taking disciplinary action against Ward Construction pursuant to section 89(j) of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 because they were in contravention of section 72(10) of that Act.

The Authority was seeking a penalty to be paid to them by Ward and was also seeking costs. At a directions hearing on 7 April 2011 the respondent accepted that proper grounds existed for disciplinary…

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 Ward Construction P... 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 289
Decision Date: 21 June 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between Queensland Building Services Authority and Ward Construction Pty Ltd was heard in a court that dealt with occupational regulation and disciplinary proceedings. The Authority, having found proper grounds for disciplinary action against the respondent, a licensed builder, issued two directions for the respondent to rectify certain issues. When the respondent failed to comply with these directions, the Authority deemed it necessary to impose a penalty and further costs. The respondent, in the meantime, surrendered their building license. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate penalty and costs for the respondent's non-compliance with the regulatory directives.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the enforcement of occupational regulations and the appropriate penalties for non-compliance. Specifically, the court needed to decide on the adequacy of the penalty imposed by the Authority and whether the costs claimed were reasonable and justifiable. Additionally, the court had to consider the respondent's surrender of their building license as part of the broader context of the disciplinary action.

In assessing these issues, the court recognised the necessity of upholding regulatory standards within the building industry to protect public safety and maintain professional integrity. The court found that the Authority had acted within its powers in issuing the directions and imposing the penalty. The penalty of $6,000 was deemed sufficient to serve as a deterrent while considering the respondent's actions and the surrender of their license. The costs of $500 were also considered reasonable and appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

The final orders of the court mandated that the respondent pay the Authority a penalty of $6,000 within 60 days and the costs of $500 within 14 days. These orders reflected the court's determination that the Authority's actions were justified and necessary to enforce compliance with occupational regulations.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent pay the Authority the penalty sum in the amount of $6,000 within 60 days.

2. The respondent pay the Authority’s costs of $500 within 14 days.

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.