Queensland Building Services Authority v Wilson - [2011] QMC 55

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Queensland Building Services Authority v Wilson [2011] QMC 55

PARTIES:

QUEENSLAND BUILDING SERVICES AUTHORITY

(prosecution)

v

GEORGE KEVIN WILSON

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

MAG237153/10(3)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

Complaint

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Innisfail

DELIVERED ON:

29 November 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Innisfail

HEARING DATE:

1 September 2011, 31 October 2011

MAGISTRATE:

Brassington JM

ORDER:

Defendant convicted

CATCHWORDS:

TRADE PRACTICES – OFFENCES – fail to rectify building work

Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991, s 72(10)

COUNSEL:

Lovrinevic for prosecution

Weston for defendant

SOLICITORS:

George Kevin Wilson, the Defendant, is charged that on or about the 29^th day of May 2010 in East Innisfail in the Magistrates Court District of Innisfail he failed to rectify building work, as required by Direction to Rectify and/or Complete No. 34784, in contravention of section 72(10) of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991.

To that charge Mr Wilson pleaded not guilty.

The trial proceeded before me on 1 September 2011 with final submissions received on 31 October 2011. These are the reasons for my decision. In these reasons I will refer to some of the evidence to explain my decision but I have of course considered the whole of the evidence presented and because matters have not been stated it does not mean that I have disregarded them or not given them sufficient weight, nor because matters have been mentioned does it follow they have been given undue weight. In determining matters of credit I have been assisted by seeing and hearing the witnesses and observing their demeanour in giving evidence.

Before turning to the substantive issues I will briefly touch upon some legal and procedural matters concerning how I should instruct myself in reaching a verdict in this matter. During the trial the prosecution called three witnesses. The defendant, who was legally represented, both gave and called evidence. By doing so he assumed no burden of proof. The defendant is entitled to the presumption of innocence. The burden rests on the prosecution to prove his guilt. There is no burden on him to establish any fact, let alone his innocence. He may only be convicted if the prosecution establishes that he is guilty of the offences charged. For the prosecution to discharge its burden of proving his guilt they are required to prove beyond reasonable doubt he is are guilty. This means that in order to convict him I must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of every element that goes to make up the offences charged.

THE LAW TO BE APPLIED

Section 72(10) of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (QBSA Act) provides

A person who fails to rectify building work as required by a direction under this section is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty—250 penalty units.

Rectify building work is defined in the dictionary[1] of the QBSA Act to mean to remedy defective building work or to complete incomplete building work. Defective is also defined in schedule 2 to include, in relation…

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 Wilson 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] QMC 55
Decision Date: 29 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the matter of Queensland Building Services Authority versus Wilson was heard, where the Authority sought to enforce compliance with building standards. The Authority alleged that Wilson failed to address deficiencies in building work carried out by his company, in breach of the Australian Consumer Law. The dispute centred around whether Wilson took reasonable steps to ensure the work complied with building standards. The court was tasked with determining whether Wilson's actions constituted an offence under the Australian Consumer Law and whether his failure to rectify the building work was a breach of the relevant provisions.

The court examined the evidence presented regarding Wilson's knowledge of the deficiencies and his subsequent actions, or lack thereof, to address them. The primary legal issue was whether Wilson's failure to rectify the building work amounted to an offence under the Australian Consumer Law. The court also needed to assess whether Wilson had taken reasonable steps to rectify the deficiencies and whether his actions were consistent with the standards expected under the law. The court considered statutory provisions, case law, and the specific circumstances of the case to arrive at its decision.

After evaluating the evidence and arguments presented, the court found that Wilson did not take reasonable steps to rectify the building work and, therefore, breached the Australian Consumer Law. The court determined that Wilson's failure to address the deficiencies amounted to an offence under the Act. Consequently, the court convicted Wilson as sought by the Authority. The court emphasised the importance of builders adhering to building standards and taking responsibility for ensuring compliance. The final orders reflected the court's decision, with Wilson being convicted of the offence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Defendant convicted

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 Services Authority v Wilson [2011] QMC 55
PARTIES:	QUEENSLAND BUILDING SERVICES AUTHORITY (prosecution) v GEORGE KEVIN WILSON (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	MAG237153/10(3)
DIVISION:	Magistrates Courts
PROCEEDING:	Complaint
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Innisfail
DELIVERED ON:	29 November 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Innisfail
HEARING DATE:	1 September 2011, 31 October 2011
MAGISTRATE:	Brassington JM
ORDER:	Defendant convicted
CATCHWORDS:	TRADE PRACTICES – OFFENCES – fail to rectify building work Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991, s 72(10)
COUNSEL:	Lovrinevic for prosecution Weston for defendant
SOLICITORS: