Roberts v Queensland Building and Construction Commission (No 2) - [2014] QCAT 344

CITATION:

Roberts v Queensland Building and Construction Commission (No 2) [2014] QCAT 344

PARTIES:	Anthony Philip Sydney Roberts (Applicant)
v
Queensland Building and Construction Commission (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR121-13

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

22 April 2014

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Howe

DELIVERED ON:

19 June 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

The decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission made on 12 April 2013 to refuse to categorise the applicant as a permitted individual is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

Permitted individual – whether individual took all reasonable steps – matrimonial breakdown – financial advice – failure to take advice – failure to show took all reasonable steps

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) ss 56AC, 56AD(8)

Younan v QBSA [2010] QDC 158

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:

Anthony Philip Sydney Roberts represented himself

RESPONDENT:

Queensland Building and Construction Commission represented by Ms Heywood

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Application

Anthony Roberts was a director of Roberts Family Homes Pty Ltd (the company) when administrators were appointed to the company on 28 March 2006 (the relevant event).
In result, on 5 May 2006 the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (the Commission) advised Mr Roberts he was an excluded individual pursuant to s 56AC of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (QBCC Act).
Mr Roberts entered into bankruptcy on 30 May 2008 (the second event). On 18 July 2008 he applied to become an excluded individual for the second event but the Commission refused that application.
On 25 March, 2013 Mr Roberts applied to the Commission to be categorised as a permitted individual for the relevant event. That application was also refused on 12 April 2013 and Mr Roberts has now applied to the Tribunal for review of that latter decision.

Circumstances Resulting in the Happening of the Relevant Event

By s 56AD(8) of the QBCC Act the Commission may categorise an individual as a permitted individual for a relevant event only if the Commission is satisfied that the individual took all reasonable steps to avoid the coming into existence of the circumstances that resulted in the happening of the relevant event.
The relevant event was the appointment of administrators to the company on 28 March, 2006.
According to Mr Roberts the circumstances that caused the happening of the relevant event were:
(a)   domestic discord or relationship breakdown;
(b)   underpricing and unprofitable building contracts;
(c)   sickness or injury; and
(d)   other family issues.
According to the Commission, the circumstances that caused the happening of the relevant events were:
(a)   poor business management;
(b)   the company operating with increasing losses over consecutive years;
(c)   the company carrying out work outside of its scope, namely the Town of Seaside project, without seeking appropriate advice; and
(d)   allowing the company to become involved in family or personal proceedings at a time when the company was itself in a vulnerable position.

Background

Mr Roberts has worked in the building industry since the age of 15. He…

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 Roberts v Queensland Building and Construction Commission (N...

Details

AGLC: Roberts v Queensland Building and Construction Commission (No 2) [2014] QCAT 344
Case: [2014] QCAT 344
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Anthony Philip Sydney Roberts, the applicant, applied to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal for a review of a decision made by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission. The Commission had refused to categorise Mr Roberts as a permitted individual under the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991. The legal issues at hand were whether Mr Roberts had taken all reasonable steps to avoid the circumstances leading to the relevant event, which was the appointment of administrators to Roberts Family Homes Pty Ltd. The Tribunal had to consider if Mr Roberts had acted reasonably given the financial and personal circumstances surrounding the company's failure.

The Tribunal found that Mr Roberts had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he took all reasonable steps to prevent the circumstances that led to the company's failure. The Tribunal noted that Mr Roberts had not sought adequate financial advice despite the company's increasing losses and had failed to address the obvious marital problems affecting the business. The Tribunal concluded that Mr Roberts did not show he had taken all reasonable steps to avoid the company's financial collapse. As a result, the Tribunal upheld the Commission's decision to refuse Mr Roberts' application to be categorised as a permitted individual.

The final orders of the Tribunal were that the decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission made on 12 April 2013 to refuse to categorise the applicant as a permitted individual is confirmed.

Orders