Techno Protective Security Services Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council

CITATION: Techno Protective Security Services Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2012] QCAT 699

PARTIES:	Techno Protective Security Services Pty Ltd t/as Indian Odyssey
v
Brisbane City Council, Environmental Health Unit

APPLICATION NUMBER: GAR344-12

MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Kerrie O'Callaghan, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON: 22 October 2012

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1.     The Decision of Brisbane City Council, Environmental Health Unit dated 12 October 2012 is stayed until seven (7) days after the determination of the internal review.

CATCHWORDS:

STAY – APPLICATION PENDING REVIEW – where stay was granted

Food Act 2006, s 240
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 22

Bein and Anor v Brisbane City Council [2012] QCAT 409
The Bell Hotel Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2012] QCAT 320

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 12 October 2012 the Brisbane City Council cancelled the Food Business Licence of Techno Protective Security Services Pty Ltd (“Techno Services”).

2. Techno Services applied to the Tribunal for a stay of the Council’s decision under section 240 of the Food Act 2006.  Such a stay will suspend the operation of the Council’s decision pending an internal review.

3. On 22 October 2012 I granted the stay.  The Brisbane City Council has asked for reasons for the decision.

4. Section 240 provides that “the applicant may immediately apply, as provided under the QCAT Act, to QCAT for a stay of the decision.”

5. Section 22 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 states that the Tribunal may make an order to stay the operation of a decision if it considers it desirable having regard to:

   1.    The interests of any person whose interests may be affected by the making of the order or the order not being made;

   2.    Any submissions made by the Council;

   3.    The public interest.

6. Factors weighing against the granting of a stay:

   1.    Techno Services since July 2010 has been found to be in contravention of the Food Standards Code on 6 occasions (on one of these occasions Council delegates attended twice in the one day).  These have been in relation to cleaning and animals and pests.

   2.    Techno Services has received a zero star rating from Council Officers under the Eat Safe Brisbane Scheme on 4 occasions since July 2010.

   3.    Techno Services' continual breaches suggest a lack of food safety skills and knowledge, and an inability to continuously manage the business in a compliant way.

   4.    The purpose of the Food Act 2006 and the Food Safety Code is to ensure food for sale is safe and suitable for human consumption.

   5.    The Council submits that public interest of ensuring food is safe and suitable for consumption is greater than Techno Service’s personal interests, including their financial interests.

7. Factor’s in favour…