Spedding v Queensland Building Services Authority

[2012] QCAT 516

CITATION: Spedding v Queensland Building Services Authority [2012] QCAT 516

PARTIES:	Mark Andrew Spedding (Applicant)
v
Queensland Building Services Authority (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: OCR171-11

MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE: 10 May 2012

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Dr Bridget Cullen, Member

DELIVERED ON: 22 October 2012

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.    The Tribunal orders that the decisions of the Queensland Building Services Authority to refuse the application to be categorised as a permitted individual be set aside.

2.    The Tribunal substitutes the Queensland Building Services Authority’s decision with the decision that Mark Andrew Spedding be categorised as a Permitted Individual for the Relevant Event.

CATCHWORDS:

Applicant to be categorised as apermitted individual – refusal – review

Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991, s 56AD(1)

Weldon v Queensland Building Services Authority [2008] CCT QR121-07

Smith v Queensland Building Services Authority [2012] QCAT 58

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT: Mark Spedding was self-represented

RESPONDENT: Queensland Building Services Authority was represented by Robinson Locke, Litigation Lawyers

REASONS FOR DECISION

Decision under review – Mr Spedding’s building licence

1. Mr Spedding is a builder reviewing a decision made by the regulator, the Queensland Building Services Authority, to refuse his application to become a “Permitted Individual” for a “Relevant Event”. In short, as a consequence of Mr Spedding’s bankruptcy, Mr Spedding became an “Excluded Individual” for licensing purposes under s 56AC of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991.  The QBSA refused his application to become a Permitted Individual, on the basis that they were not satisfied that Mr Spedding had satisfied the test contained in s 56AD of the Act.

2. Helpfully, the parties worked together to produce a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues in Contention.  The issues in contention are:

   §Whether or not Mr Spedding took all reasonable steps in regard to ensuring guarantees provided were covered by sufficient assets to cover the liability under the guarantees – s 56AD(8A)(d) of the Act;

   §Whether or not Mr Spedding took all reasonable steps in regard to making provision for, and paying, his income tax – s 56AD(8A)(f) of the Act; and

   §Whether the existence of the outstanding tax debt caused, or contributed to, the happening of the relevant event.

Guarantees made by Mr Spedding

1. The “Relevant Event” in this matter was Mr Spedding’s 28 August 2009 bankruptcy, initiated by his appointment of a controlling trustee.  At the time of his bankruptcy, Mr Spedding had no assets, but very significant liabilities.  These consisted of:

   §Liabilities per the bankruptcy Statement of Affairs of $29,646,074.00; and

   §Liabilities as a result of guarantees given by Mr Spedding of $26,825,782.00.

2. The guarantees given by Mr Spedding were as follows:

   §$18,062,000.00 – owed to LM Investment Management Limited, relating to the “Ocean View Banora Point Partnership” partnership entered into by Lushbrook as trustee for the Spedding Family Trust.  Lushbrook held a 25% interest, however, as the guarantee was joint and several, Mr Spedding was liable for the entire partnership liability, not just the 25%…