Webb v Queensland Building Services Authority - [2012] QCAT 145

CITATION:

Webb v Queensland Building Services Authority [2012] QCAT 145

PARTIES:	Mr Adam Webb
v
Queensland Building Services Authority

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR087-11

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

2 April 2012

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Sandra G Deane, Member

DELIVERED ON:

11 April 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Application for review is dismissed.

2. Each of the parties are to file in the Tribunal and serve upon the other party any:

a) submissions on costs generally (including reserved costs if any) on or before 4pm on 4 May 2012; and

b) submissions in reply to such written submissions on or before 4pm on 18 May 2012.

3. Unless any party requests an oral hearing in relation to any application for costs such application shall be determined on the papers not before 18 May 2012.

CATCHWORDS:

REVIEW APPLICATION – decision to refuse a licence – application dismissed

Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991, ss 32AA, 86
Queensland Building Services Authority Regulation 2003, s 16A, schedules 2, 3
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 20, 60

Sultana Investments Pty Ltd v Cellcom Pty Ltd (No 1) [2009] 1 Qd R 589
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Kurtovic (1990) 21 FCR 193
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Petrovski (1997) 73 FCR 303
Marshall v Marshall [1999] 1 Qd R 173

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	Mr Adam Webb (in person)
RESPONDENT:	Queensland Building Services Authority represented by Mr E Bird (in house legal officer)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

Mr Webb applied to the Queensland Building Services Authority (QBSA) for a Medium Rise contractor’s licence and a Site Supervisor – Open licence.
The QBSA refused both licences in its decision dated 29 March 2011 on the grounds that Mr Webb did not meet the technical qualification and experience requirements.
Mr Webb applied to the Tribunal to review the decision to refuse both licences.[1]
[1] Section 86 QBSA Act 1991.
Central to Mr Webb’s case is that before he embarked on obtaining appropriate technical qualifications he made lengthy enquiries in 2008 as to appropriate technical qualifications, explained to the QBSA his proposal to seek these qualifications through the Royal Insititute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and received an email from the QBSA which represented that he ‘would need to hold a formal qualification as a Chartered Surveyor to meet the legislative technical requirement for Builder Open’.[2]
[2] Exhibit SOE4 to the Applicant’s Statement of Evidence filed 4 August 2011.
In reliance on this statement Mr Webb embarked upon a course of action to obtain the qualification as a Chartered Surveyor from RICS and thereby expended significant sums of money and hours of time.
It is not disputed that:
a)    RICS is the only body from which Mr Webb could obtain the qualification as a Chartered Surveyor.
b)    He obtained this qualification on 11 June 2010.[3]
c)     Mr Webb expended significant sums of money in obtaining this qualification.
d)    Neither the QBSA Act…

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 Webb 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

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: [2012] QCAT 145
Decision Date: 11 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Webb v Queensland Building Services Authority, the respondent sought a review of the decision to refuse a licence application by the Building Services Authority. The applicant, Mr Webb, had applied for a licence to work as a gas fitter but was denied by the Authority. The dispute was brought before the relevant tribunal to determine the legality of the Authority's decision.

The central legal issues before the tribunal involved whether the Authority's decision to refuse the licence was lawful and whether there were procedural errors that warranted a review. Specifically, the tribunal needed to consider whether the Authority's actions were justified and whether Mr Webb's rights under the relevant statutes were properly considered.

The tribunal thoroughly examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. It found that the Authority had followed the correct procedures and provided valid reasons for the refusal, which were supported by the evidence. The tribunal also determined that Mr Webb's rights were not infringed upon and that the decision was made in accordance with the applicable laws. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed, and the tribunal ordered that each party submit their costs submissions by specified dates, with any requests for an oral hearing to be made promptly.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for review is dismissed.

2. Each of the parties are to file in the Tribunal and serve upon the other party any:

a) submissions on costs generally (including reserved costs if any) on or before 4pm on 4 May 2012; and

b) submissions in reply to such written submissions on or before 4pm on 18 May 2012.

3. Unless any party requests an oral hearing in relation to any application for costs such application shall be determined on the papers not before 18 May 2012.

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.