| CITATION: | Sims v Queensland Building Services Authority [2012] QCAT 210 |
| PARTIES: | Tracey Anne Sims |
| v | |
| Queensland Building Services Authority |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR277-10 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 16 December 2011 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Mr Andrew McLean Williams, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 22 May 2012 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The decision of the QBSA made on 23 September 2010 to refuse to categorise the applicant as a permitted individual for the relevant event is confirmed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Becoming a “permitted individual” after a relevant company event – Requirement for satisfaction that the applicant took all reasonable steps to avoid the coming into existence of the circumstances that resulted in the happening of the relevant event Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991, ss 56AC, 56AD |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | In person |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Malcolm Robinson, solicitor (Robinson Locke Solicitors) |
REASONS FOR DECISION
QCAT matters OCR277-10 and OCR278-10 are, in all material respects, identical. Each matter comprises an Application for Review,[1] brought before QCAT pursuant to s 86 of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (‘QBSA Act’).
[1] Each application to review was filed in the QCAT Registry on 22 October 2010.
By their application, each Applicant seeks to review separate (yet identical) decisions of the Queensland Building Services Authority (‘QBSA’), made on 23 September 2010,[2] refusing to categorise each of them as “permitted individuals”[3] for the “relevant event”[4] which, in each case, was the appointment on 28 April 2010 of liquidators to Cliff Cameron Constructions Pty Ltd (“the company”), by way of a creditors voluntary winding up. At all relevant times, each Applicant was a director of the company.
[2]Reasons for the Decision dated 23 September 2010 were provided by the QBSA decision-maker on 24 November 2010.
[3] QBSA Act, s 56AD.
[4] QBSA Act, ss 56AC(2), 56AC(4).
The Law
The relevant provisions are to be found in Part 3A of the QBSA Act. Section 56AC(2) provides that a director, or secretary of, or an influential person for, a company that has a provisional liquidator, liquidator, administrator or controller appointed; or that is wound up, or ordered to be wound up (each of which event is termed in the section to be a “relevant company event”), thereby becomes – by reason of the operation of s 56AC(4) – an “excluded individual” for a period of five years after the occurrence of the relevant company event. The day-to-day effect of that is that the excluded individual thereby becomes ineligible to hold a QBSA licence,[5] and is unable to participate in the Queensland building industry in any licence holding capacity.
[5] QBSA Act, s 56AE.
The very next section in Part 3A of the QBSA Act is s 56AD. It provides a mechanism by which an excluded individual may still apply to the QBSA to become a “permitted individual”, notwithstanding the fact of the occurrence of a relevant event. In circumstances where such an application is made, the QBSA must then determine the application in…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Sims v Queensland Building Services Authority 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2012] QCAT 210
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was the interpretation of the statutory provision that required Sims to demonstrate that he took all reasonable steps to prevent the circumstances that resulted in the relevant event. The court needed to determine whether Sims had satisfied this requirement and if the QBSA's decision to deny his application was legally sound. The court also had to consider whether the QBSA's interpretation of the statutory criteria was correct and if Sims' actions met the legislative requirements.
The court found that Sims had not taken all reasonable steps to avoid the circumstances that led to the relevant event. It was established that Sims had not acted diligently in preventing the occurrence of the event and had not demonstrated the level of care required by the statutory provision. The QBSA's decision was upheld, as Sims' actions did not meet the necessary threshold for being recognised as a permitted individual. The court confirmed that the QBSA's decision was legally sound and in accordance with the statutory requirements.
The court confirmed the QBSA's decision to refuse Sims' application to be categorised as a permitted individual for the relevant event. The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed, and the decision made by the QBSA on 23 September 2010 was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The decision of the QBSA made on 23 September 2010 to refuse to categorise the applicant as a permitted individual for the relevant event 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.