Speedy v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2015] QCAT 245

CITATION:

Speedy v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2015] QCAT 245

PARTIES:	John Martin Speedy (Applicant)
v
Queensland Building and Construction Commission (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR067-14

MATTER TYPE:	General administrative review matters
HEARING DATE:	20 April 2015

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

A/Senior Member Hughes

DELIVERED ON:

23 June 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission not to categorise John Martin Speedy as a permitted individual is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – PERMITTED INDIVIDUAL – where relevant event was administration of company – where circumstances were inability to pay creditors and recover money owing from debtors –– whether individual took reasonable steps – where appropriate provision not made for taxation debts - where loans to related entities while having outstanding tax liabilities – where steps to recover amounts owing not sufficient – where no attempt to examine debtor finances, negotiate more favourable payment arrangements or seek further security

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) ss 56AC, 56AD, 56AE, 56AF
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 20

D’Arro v. Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2015] QCAT 100
Ernst v. Building Services Authority [2011] QCATA 155
Papallo v Queensland Building Services Authority [2012] QCAT 59
Walker v. Wimborne (1976) 137 CLR 1
Younan v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QDC 158

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:

Mr MJ Drysdale of Counsel instructed by Romans & Romans Lawyers appeared on behalf of Mr John Martin Speedy

RESPONDENT:

Mr Malcolm Robinson of Robinson Locke Litigation Lawyers appeared on behalf of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is this Application about?

John Martin Speedy has been working hard as a builder for over 30 years and completed approximately $800M worth of construction projects for over 100 clients. Mr Speedy wants to keep working as a builder.
Mr Speedy’s company, Global Construction Management (QLD) Pty Ltd, completed approximately $150M of construction projects over the last 10 years. Despite all his hard work, Mr Speedy’s company, Global Construction Management (QLD) Pty Ltd, fell into some financial difficulties. Administrators were appointed on 28 November 2013.
Because of this, the Queensland Building and Construction Commission cancelled Mr Speedy’s licence on 9 December 2013.[1] Mr Speedy then applied to the Commission to categorise him as a ‘permitted individual’.[2] This would allow him to keep his open licence.
[1] Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) ss 56AC, 56AE and
56AF.
[2] Ibid, s 56AD.
Unfortunately for Mr Speedy, the Commission decided not to categorise him as a ‘permitted individual’. Understandably, Mr Speedy has applied to the Tribunal to review the Commission’s decision.
In deciding Mr Speedy’s application, the issues for me to determine are the circumstances that resulted in administrators being appointed to his company, and whether Mr Speedy took all reasonable steps to avoid the ‘coming into existence of’ those circumstances.[3]
[3] Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) s 56AD(8).

What does the Tribunal do?

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 Speedy v Queensland Building and Construction Commission 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: [2015] QCAT 245
Decision Date: 23 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Speedy v Queensland Building and Construction Commission involved a challenge by John Martin Speedy against the Queensland Building and Construction Commission’s decision not to categorise him as a permitted individual. The dispute centred on the Commission's assessment that Speedy did not take reasonable steps to prevent the company of which he was an administrator from incurring debts beyond its ability to repay, as required by relevant statutory provisions. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issues revolved around whether Speedy had taken reasonable steps to prevent the company from incurring debts that it could not repay, considering the specific circumstances such as the company’s inability to pay creditors and recover money owed by debtors. Key considerations included whether Speedy made appropriate provisions for taxation debts, the loans made to related entities while having outstanding tax liabilities, the adequacy of steps taken to recover amounts owed, and the absence of attempts to examine the debtor's finances, negotiate more favourable payment arrangements, or seek further security.

The court examined the statutory framework governing the classification of permitted individuals and the Commission's discretion in assessing compliance with those provisions. It considered the evidence provided by Speedy and the Commission's assessment, finding that Speedy had not taken sufficient reasonable steps to mitigate the company’s financial risks. The court held that the Commission’s decision was not flawed and thus confirmed the decision not to categorise Speedy as a permitted individual.

The court's decision affirmed the Commission's findings and maintained the status quo, ensuring that Speedy's application to be recognised as a permitted individual was rejected. This outcome underscores the importance of adhering to statutory obligations and taking proactive measures to manage financial risks within a corporate structure.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission not to categorise John Martin Speedy as a permitted individual 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.