Kanaan v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2014] NSWCATOD 126

Kanaan v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2014] NSWCATOD 126

The Applicant proved that his employment with North Shore Building Developments Pty Ltd counted toward the required experience, but that period was only about 12 months. The evidence about his earlier work with Prominent Building Pty Ltd was inadequate to establish relevant general building experience, particularly because the written reference lacked sufficient detail about the trades and building work undertaken and Mr Sarkis was not called to explain inconsistencies. Accordingly, the Applicant did not establish a minimum of two years' relevant industry experience, and the correct and preferable decision was to affirm the Respondent's refusal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of a Decision Refusing a Variation to a Contractor Licence Under the Home Building Act 1989 (nsw) / Final Decision of the Tribunal
Outcome
Respondent's decision refusing the licence variation is affirmed.
Legal Topics
['contractor Licence Variation' 'general Building Work' 'relevant Industry Experience' 'financial Remuneration' 'supervision by Licence Holder']
['administrative Law' 'occupational Licensing' 'building and Construction'] ['contractor Licence Variation' 'general Building Work' 'relevant Industry Experience' 'financial Remuneration' 'supervision by Licence Holder']

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

Application for Review of a Decision Refusing a Variation to a Contractor Licence Under the Home Building Act 1989 (nsw) / Final Decision of the Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicant met the experience component required for variation of his contractor licence to cover general building work under the Instrument dated 3 July 2013 made pursuant to clause 28(1) of the Home Building Regulation (2004) (NSW).' "Whether the Applicant had at least two years' relevant industry experience in a wide range of building construction work." 'Whether work with Prominent Building Pty Ltd counted as experience gained as an employee or person otherwise lawfully engaged, supervised and directed by a relevant licence holder, and financially remunerated.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant proved that his employment with North Shore Building Developments Pty Ltd counted toward the required experience, but that period was only about 12 months. The evidence about his earlier work with Prominent Building Pty Ltd was inadequate to establish relevant general building experience, particularly because the written reference lacked sufficient detail about the trades and building work undertaken and Mr Sarkis was not called to explain inconsistencies. Accordingly, the Applicant did not establish a minimum of two years' relevant industry experience, and the correct and preferable decision was to affirm the Respondent's refusal.

Court Disposition

Respondent's decision refusing the licence variation is affirmed.

Orders

  • ["Respondent's decision is affirmed"]