Reed v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2025] QCAT 447

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Reed v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2025] QCAT 447

PARTIES:

DAVID JOHN REED

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR215-22

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

7 November 2025

HEARING DATE:

21 March 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member King-Scott

ORDERS:

The Tribunal makes the following orders:

1. The Application is dismissed;

2. The decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – BUILDERS – LICENCES AND REGISTRATION – Where applicant seeks review of decision to refuse Builder - Restricted to Structural Landscaping Licence – where issue is whether applicant has four years' experience in scope of work – where applicant has extensive experience in playground construction – where experience in other scope items limited, dated or poorly documented – where some scope items have no demonstrated experience – whether experience across scope of work sufficient – held, not satisfied applicant has required experience

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14A
Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 3, s 31, s 34, s 35
Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld), Sch 2, Pt 10

Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27

Collector of Customs v Agfa-Gevaert Limited (1996) 186 CLR 389

Gill v Donald Humberstone & Co Ltd [1963] 3 All ER 180

Langton v The Independent Commission Against Corruption (2000) 49 NSWLR 164

Melbourne Pathology Pty Ltd v Minister for Human Services and Health (1996) 40 ALD 565

Meyer v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2023] QCAT 24

Phillips v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCAT 159

Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355

Rehabilitation Medicine Australia Pty Ltd v NIB Health Funds Ltd(No 2) [2020] FCA 1761

Saunders v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2017] QCAT 318

Secretary, Department of Health (as successor to the Secretary, Department of Social Services) v DLW Health Services Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 108

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

McLeod KC instructed by Clutch Legal

Respondent:

Seefeld of counsel instructed by Norton Rose Solicitors

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

The Applicant, Mr David John Reed, seeks review of the decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (‘QBCC’) dated 15 July 2022 refusing his application for a Builder – Restricted to Structural Landscaping Licence (‘BRSL Licence’).
The sole issue in dispute is whether the Applicant has demonstrated four years' experience in the scope of work for the BRSL Licence class as required by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld) (‘the Regulation’).
The Applicant's technical qualifications are not in issue, nor are the financial requirements. The QBCC accepts that the Applicant's qualifications exceed the qualification requirements for the licence.[1]
[1]Schedule 2, Part 10 (3) of the Regulation and the respondent’s statement of reasons at para 44, p 22, Ex1 and T1-7 lines 22-24 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.

Continue reading Reed v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

Details

AGLC: Reed v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2025] QCAT 447
Case: [2025] QCAT 447
Decision Date: 7 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Reed v Queensland Building and Construction Commission involved the applicant, Mr Reed, who sought a review of the decision by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission to refuse him a Builder - Restricted to Structural Landscaping Licence. The applicant argued that he possessed the requisite four years' experience in the scope of work outlined in the licensing scheme. The dispute was heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The primary legal issue the Tribunal needed to decide was whether the applicant had acquired the necessary four years' experience in the scope of work required by the licensing scheme. This involved assessing the extent, relevance, and documentation of the applicant's experience in various aspects of structural landscaping. The Tribunal had to determine if the applicant's experience, particularly in playground construction, sufficiently covered the other scope items as required by the scheme.

The Tribunal carefully examined the applicant's experience in relation to each scope item. While the applicant had extensive experience in playground construction, the Tribunal found that his experience in other scope items was limited, dated, or poorly documented. Furthermore, some scope items had no demonstrated experience at all. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the requirement of having four years' experience across the entire scope of work as outlined in the licensing scheme. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the application and confirmed the decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission.

The Tribunal made two orders: first, the application was dismissed; and second, the decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission was confirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal makes the following orders:

1. The Application is dismissed;

2. The decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission is confirmed.

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.