McLeod v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2022] NSWCATOD 179

McLeod v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2022] NSWCATOD 179

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the statutory requirement of at least two years' relevant industry experience in a wide range of building construction work (as an employee or otherwise as prescribed) under proper supervision, and that most of his experience was as a subcontractor, not as an employee. The Tribunal also held that the requirements of the Instrument issued under the Act must be strictly applied. Thus, the refusal of the licence application was affirmed.

Parties
Applicant: Brendan McLeod; Respondent: Commissioner for Fair Trading
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Hearing and Final Decision
Outcome
The decision under review is affirmed.
Legal Topics
Contractor Licences, Building Experience Requirements, Administrative Review, Licensing Qualifications
Administrative Law Occupational Regulation Home Building Contractor Licences Building Experience Requirements Administrative Review Licensing Qualifications

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brendan McLeod

Applicant

Commissioner for Fair Trading

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Review / Hearing and Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant demonstrated at least two years’ relevant industry experience in a wide range of building construction work as required for a contractor licence under the Home Building Act 1989
  2. 2 Whether experience as a subcontractor/project manager under ACT/QLD licensed builders suffices for NSW licensing requirements under the Instrument and the Act
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal should treat the experience requirements set out in the Instrument as binding or as merely a guideline

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the statutory requirement of at least two years' relevant industry experience in a wide range of building construction work (as an employee or otherwise as prescribed) under proper supervision, and that most of his experience was as a subcontractor, not as an employee. The Tribunal also held that the requirements of the Instrument issued under the Act must be strictly applied. Thus, the refusal of the licence application was affirmed.

Court Disposition

The decision under review is affirmed.

Orders

  • The decision under review is affirmed.