Kaltoum v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2022] NSWCATOD 138

Kaltoum v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2022] NSWCATOD 138

Although the Applicant satisfied the qualifications limb by holding a supervisor certificate, the material before the Tribunal was not compelling enough to support an opinion that he had the required experience, knowledge and skills for registration as a 'building practitioner – body corporate nominee'. The unsigned and generalised reference letters carried little weight, lacked specificity about how the Applicant demonstrated the required knowledge and skills, and provided an insufficient foundation for the necessary positive opinion. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to affirm the refusal of registration.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Decision Refusing Registration as a Building Practitioner Under the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (nsw) / Review After Internal Review Confirmed the Refusal Decision
Outcome
The decision under review is affirmed.
Legal Topics
['building Practitioner Registration' 'body Corporate Nominee' 'qualifications, Skills, Knowledge and Experience' 'recent Relevant Practical Experience']
['administrative Law' 'occupational Licensing' 'building and Construction Regulation'] ['building Practitioner Registration' 'body Corporate Nominee' 'qualifications, Skills, Knowledge and Experience' 'recent Relevant Practical Experience']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Administrative Review of Decision Refusing Registration as a Building Practitioner Under the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (nsw) / Review After Internal Review Confirmed the Refusal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Applicant had the qualifications, skills, knowledge and experience to carry out the work for which he sought registration as a 'building practitioner – body corporate nominee'." 'Whether the evidence provided by the Applicant was sufficient to support registration under the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) and Design and Building Practitioners Regulation 2021 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Applicant satisfied the qualifications limb by holding a supervisor certificate, the material before the Tribunal was not compelling enough to support an opinion that he had the required experience, knowledge and skills for registration as a 'building practitioner – body corporate nominee'. The unsigned and generalised reference letters carried little weight, lacked specificity about how the Applicant demonstrated the required knowledge and skills, and provided an insufficient foundation for the necessary positive opinion. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to affirm the refusal of registration.

Court Disposition

The decision under review is affirmed.

Orders

  • ['The decision under review is affirmed.']