Mehieddine v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2022] NSWCATOD 178

Mehieddine v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2022] NSWCATOD 178

The applicant did not establish that the claimed work at the Hodge Street site and the Georges Hall site met the gazetted experience requirements because the relevant builder or supervisor was not licensed or was not shown to have supervised the work as required, and the applicant was not employed by entities said...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Refusal of Application for a Contractor's Licence in the Category of General Building Work / Review by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales, Occupational Division
Outcome
The respondent's decision made on 18 November 2021 was affirmed.
Legal Topics
['contractor Licences' 'general Building Work' 'relevant Industry Experience' 'administrative Review' 'home Building Act 1989']
['administrative Law' 'home Building Regulation' 'occupational Licensing'] ['contractor Licences' 'general Building Work' 'relevant Industry Experience' 'administrative Review' 'home Building Act 1989']

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Administrative Review of Refusal of Application for a Contractor's Licence in the Category of General Building Work / Review by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales, Occupational Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant demonstrated at least two years' relevant industry experience in a wide range of building construction work for a contractor's licence in general building work." "Whether claimed experience at 154 Rex Road, Georges Hall could be counted where DHB Construction Pty Ltd's licence expired and its nominated supervisor had only a consultant role." 'Whether claimed experience at 50 Hodge Street, Hurstville could be counted where the alleged supervisor or builder did not hold the relevant licence or certificate during the period and the applicant was not employed by Tier One Construction or Al Ghadeer.' "Whether the respondent's refusal of the licence application should be affirmed, varied or set aside."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not establish that the claimed work at the Hodge Street site and the Georges Hall site met the gazetted experience requirements because the relevant builder or supervisor was not licensed or was not shown to have supervised the work as required, and the applicant was not employed by entities said to have supervised him. Without that experience, the Tribunal was not satisfied that he met the two-year relevant industry experience criterion, so the correct and preferable decision was to affirm the refusal.

Court Disposition

The respondent's decision made on 18 November 2021 was affirmed.

Orders

  • ['The decision of the respondent made on 18 November 2021 is affirmed.']