Williams v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2015] QCAT 42

CITATION:

Williams v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2015] QCAT 42

PARTIES:	Neil Joseph Williams (Applicant)
v
Queensland Building and Construction Commission (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR206-13

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

13, 14, 15 October 2014

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Paratz

DELIVERED ON:

6 February 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The Decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission made on 11 July 2013, considering Neil Joseph Williams to be an “excluded individual” pursuant to s 56AC of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

BUILDER – EXCLUDED INDIVIDUAL – whether the applicant was a Director of, or an influential person as to, a company– whether documents were signed by the applicant or were forgeries – whether a person was a financier to the company or made personal loans to other persons

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 56AC, s 56AC(2), s 56AC(4), Schedule 2

APPEARANCES:

APPLICANT:	Mr S B Whitten of Counsel Instructed by Walker Pender Group
RESPONDENT:	Mr R J Anderson of Counsel Instructed by Robinson Locke Litigation Lawyers

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) issued a “Notice of Reasons for Proposed Cancellation of Licence” dated 11 July 2013 to Mr Neil Joseph Williams in which it advised that it considered him to be an “excluded individual” pursuant to s 56AC of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (Qld).
The reason stated was that Mr Williams was a Director, secretary or influential person for Major Sheds and Tanks Pty Ltd (the Company) at the time of, or within one year of, the Company having a liquidator appointed.
Mr Williams filed an Application to review the decision in the Tribunal on 8 August 2013.
The application was heard over three days. Three witnesses were called on behalf of Mr Williams – Julia Johnstone, Wade Moore and Mr Williams. Three witnesses were called on behalf of the QBCC – Bruce Morgenstern, Timothy Dilger, and Colin Major. Statements of two further witnesses on behalf of the QBCC were admitted into evidence without cross-examination – Mr Heath (a hand writing expert) and Peter Dinoris (a liquidator). Directions were given for the filing of final Submissions and Replies, which were provided by both parties. These are the Reasons in the matter.
Mr Williams denied that he was a Director or influential person for the Company, and alleged that documents purporting to bear his signature had been forged.

Evidence of Ms Johnstone

Julia Johnstone is Mr William’s de-facto partner. She said that Mr Dilger came to collect some forms from their house which he had dropped in to them in July 2013. He advised that they had to be signed by Mr Williams.
She identified the document as a Questionnaire. She said that she filled the form out, under the direction of, and with information supplied from, Mr Dilger, because there was a notice on them warning of jail if they were not completed. She…

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] QCAT 42
Decision Date: 6 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Neil Joseph Williams sought to challenge a decision by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) that found him to be an “excluded individual” under the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991. The court was asked to determine whether Williams was a director of, or an influential person in, a company, whether certain documents were signed by Williams or were forgeries, and whether a person was a financier to the company or made personal loans to other persons. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Williams was an excluded individual under the QBCC Act and, if so, whether the QBCC’s decision was legally sound. The court had to consider whether Williams was a director or influential person in a company, whether documents in question were genuine or forgeries, and the nature of the financial relationships involved. The court also needed to determine if the QBCC’s decision was supported by the evidence and was lawful, just, and reasonable.

The court found that Williams was an excluded individual under the QBCC Act, as he was both a director of and an influential person in a company. The court held that the documents in question were genuine and signed by Williams, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the QBCC’s findings. The court confirmed that the QBCC’s decision was lawful, just, and reasonable, and dismissed Williams’ appeal. The court confirmed the QBCC’s decision, made on 11 July 2013, finding Neil Joseph Williams to be an “excluded individual” under s 56AC of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission made on 11 July 2013, considering Neil Joseph Williams to be an “excluded individual” pursuant to s 56AC of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), 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.