Williams v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2015] QCATA 138

CITATION:	Williams v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2015] QCATA 138
PARTIES:	Neil Joseph Williams (Appellant)
v
Queensland Building and Construction Commission (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL096-15

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

14 September 2015

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member O’Callaghan
Member Hughes

DELIVERED ON:

21 September 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – EXCLUDED INDIVIDUAL - whether grounds for leave to appeal established – whether Member applied correct legal test – whether findings open on evidence – whether reasons adequate – where no grounds to grant leave to appeal as no error by Member causing substantial injustice or question of public importance

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 1274B
Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991, s 56AC, Schedule 2
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 143

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v. Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
Bradlyn Nominees Pty Ltd v. Saikovski [2012] QCATA 39
Cachia v. Grech [2009] NSWCA 232
Chambers v. Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1
Dearman v. Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 at 561
Drew v. Bundaberg Regional Council [2011] QCA 359
Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v. Bairstow & Anor [1955] 3 All ER 48
Fox v. Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v. Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 QdR 388
International Cat Manufacturing Pty Ltd (in liquidation) & Anor v. Rodrick & Ors [2013] QSC 91
Jimenez v. Sternlight Investments t/a LJ Hooker Ale4xandra Hills [2010] QCATA 29
Lida Build Pty Ltd v. Miller & Anor [2011] QCATA 219
McClintock v. Queensland Building Services Authority [2011] QCATA 310
McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v. Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 QdR 577
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v. SZMDS & Anor (2010) 240 CLR 611
QUYD Pty Ltd v. Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 QdR 41
Selvanayagam v. University of the West Indies [1983] 1 All ER 824
Slater v. Wilkes [2012] QCATA 12
Soulemezis v. Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
Waterford v. The Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 54

APPEARANCES:

APPELLANT: Mr S B Whitten of Counsel instructed by Walker Pender Group appeared for Mr Neil Williams
RESPONDENT: Mr R J Anderson of Counsel instructed by Robinson Locke Litigation Lawyers appeared for the Queensland Building and Construction Commission

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member O’Callaghan

In this appeal, the appeal Tribunal comprised Member Hughes and me. I have had the benefit of reading Member Hughes’ reasons in draft and I agree with his reasons, conclusions and the orders he proposes.

Member Hughes
What is this appeal about?

Mr Neil Williams has worked hard as a concreter for almost 30 years. In that time, he has built up his business to a considerable enterprise. Despite this, the Queensland Building and Construction Commission classified him as an ‘Excluded Individual’ because he was a Director, secretary or ‘influential person’ of a company with a liquidator appointed.
Because this means Mr Williams can no longer work as a licensed builder, he understandably…

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 Williams 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] QCATA 138
Decision Date: 21 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal brought by the applicant, Williams, against a decision made by the respondent, the Queensland Building and Construction Commission. The dispute centred on Williams’ exclusion from the industry’s building and construction workers’ award, and the subsequent decision of the Commission not to review that exclusion. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The central legal issues for the court to determine were whether the grounds for leave to appeal had been established and, if so, whether the Member of the Commission had applied the correct legal test in making the decision, whether the findings were open on the evidence, and whether the reasons provided were adequate. The court was also required to consider whether there were grounds to grant leave to appeal based on an error by the Member that caused substantial injustice or raised a question of public importance.

The court found that there were no grounds to grant leave to appeal. The Member had applied the correct legal test and their findings were open on the evidence. The reasons provided were also deemed adequate. The court held that there was no error by the Member that caused substantial injustice or raised a question of public importance. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The court issued an order refusing leave to appeal. This decision effectively upheld the original determination of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission and affirmed Williams’ exclusion from the industry’s award.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal is refused.

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.