Cole v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2024] NSWCATOD 65

Cole v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2024] NSWCATOD 65

The Applicant did not establish the required two years' relevant industry Experience in a wide range of building construction work. Work at Handford Place and Casey Street was not verified in the Relevant Application Form and therefore was not Experience for the purposes of the Instrument. The Tribunal was not satisfied that, from January to June 2020, the Applicant was a full-time employee of Dinkum or received Remuneration under the Instrument in accordance with law. After excluding that period, the verified work at Lily Pilly Place and Gardiner Road amounted to only about 19 months even if accepted. Because the Applicant did not meet the experience requirements, ss 33D(1)(b) and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Refusal to Vary a Concreters Licence to an Individual Contractor Licence in the Category of General Building Work / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
The decision under review is affirmed.
Legal Topics
['application to Vary Licence' 'general Building Work Contractor Licence' 'experience Requirements' 'relevant Application Form' 'remuneration' 'wide Range of Building Construction Work']
['administrative Law' 'home Building Licensing'] ['application to Vary Licence' 'general Building Work Contractor Licence' 'experience Requirements' 'relevant Application Form' 'remuneration' 'wide Range of Building Construction Work']

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 Refusal to Vary a Concreters Licence to an Individual Contractor Licence in the Category of General Building Work / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicant satisfied the experience requirements to vary his concreters licence to an individual contractor licence in the category of general building work.' 'Whether work at Handford Place and Casey Street was verified in the Relevant Application Form as required by the Instrument.' 'Whether the Applicant was an employee of Dinkum and received Remuneration in accordance with law for work relied upon as Experience.' "Whether the Applicant demonstrated at least two years' relevant industry Experience in a wide range of building construction work."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant did not establish the required two years' relevant industry Experience in a wide range of building construction work. Work at Handford Place and Casey Street was not verified in the Relevant Application Form and therefore was not Experience for the purposes of the Instrument. The Tribunal was not satisfied that, from January to June 2020, the Applicant was a full-time employee of Dinkum or received Remuneration under the Instrument in accordance with law. After excluding that period, the verified work at Lily Pilly Place and Gardiner Road amounted to only about 19 months even if accepted. Because the Applicant did not meet the experience requirements, ss 33D(1)(b) and...

Court Disposition

The decision under review is affirmed.

Orders

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