Turcinovic v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2016] QCAT 279

CITATION:

Turcinovic v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2016] QCAT 279

PARTIES:	Hajrudin Turcinovic (Applicant)
v
Queensland Building and Construction Commission (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR161-15

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:

18 July 2016

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Hughes

DELIVERED ON:

26 July 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission refusing the application by Hajrudin Turcinovic for a contractor licence in the class of Builder – Low Rise is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING – BUILDER LICENCE - where decision not to grant builder licence – whether minimum financial requirements met – where no independent verification of current Net Tangible Assets –-- whether ‘fit and proper’ person to hold licence – whether builder acted with honesty and integrity – where builder provided incorrect information in application for licence – where no evidence of intent to mislead – where unpaid debts owing to Queensland Building and Construction Commission - where unpaid debt for insurance claims relating to licensee’s work - where builder did not include alleged debt owing to Commission as contingent liability in Net Tangible Assets – where alleged debt relates to multiple insurance claims - where no evidence to support defence to debt recovery proceedings for insurance claims paid for licensee’s work - whether builder failed to carry out commercial or statutory obligations – where debt owing for infringement notices – where builder failed to comply with 15 of 17 ‘Directions to Rectify’ – where multiple offences resulting in disciplinary proceedings – where history of undocumented variations – where recurring failure to comply with commercial and statutory obligations over extended period

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 31, s 35, s 48, s 108C
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20

Ericson v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2014] QCA 297
Ericson v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCA 391
Habchi & Anor v Turcinovic [2011] QCAT 309
HNT Civil Construction v Mahamoud [2013] QCAT 36
Ho & Anor v Turcinovic & Anor [2013] QCAT 248

Metal Line South Brisbane Pty Ltd v Turcinovic t/as HNT Civil Building Construction Maintenance [2011] QCAT 348

O’Brien v Gladstone Regional Council [2015] QCATA 82
Pop v Queensland Building Services Authority [2012] QCAT 388

Queensland Building and Construction Commission v Bloomfield & Anor [2015] QCATA 19

Turcinovic v Gebeyehu [2011] QDC 215
Turcinovic v Kavvadas [2013] QCAT 265
Turcinovic v Kavvadas [2014] QCAT 11
Turcinovic v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCAT 541

APPEARANCES:

APPLICANT:

Mr Hajrudin Turcinovic represented himself

RESPONDENT:

Ms Jodie Stroud, solicitor appeared on behalf of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is this Application about?

Hajrudin Turcinovic has been through a lot. He is a 64 year old builder with significant experience in the industry, including government tender work. For a while, his business was a success.
Things changed for the worse in 2001 when his son was severely beaten and permanently…

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 Turcinovic 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: [2016] QCAT 279
Decision Date: 26 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Turcinovic v Queensland Building and Construction Commission, the applicant Hajrudin Turcinovic sought review of a decision by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) to refuse his application for a contractor licence in the class of Builder – Low Rise. The dispute centred around the Commission's assessment of Turcinovic's eligibility for the licence, particularly in relation to the financial requirements, fitness to hold the licence, and compliance with commercial and statutory obligations.

The key legal issues before the court were whether Turcinovic met the minimum financial requirements for the licence, including the accurate reporting of his Net Tangible Assets, and whether he was a 'fit and proper' person to hold the licence. This involved examining his honesty, integrity, and whether he had complied with commercial and statutory obligations. The court had to determine if the Commission's decision was justified based on the evidence presented, including Turcinovic's provision of incorrect information in his application and the presence of unpaid debts.

The court found that Turcinovic did not meet the minimum financial requirements as he failed to provide an independent verification of his current Net Tangible Assets. Additionally, the court held that Turcinovic was not a 'fit and proper' person to hold the licence due to his failure to act with honesty and integrity. This was evidenced by the provision of incorrect information in his licence application and his failure to include a debt owed to the QBCC as a contingent liability. Furthermore, Turcinovic's history of non-compliance with commercial and statutory obligations, including multiple offences and disciplinary proceedings, supported the Commission's decision. Consequently, the court confirmed the Commission's decision to refuse Turcinovic's application for a contractor licence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission refusing the application by Hajrudin Turcinovic for a contractor licence in the class of Builder – Low Rise 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.