El Masri v Safework NSW [2018] NSWCATAD 194

El Masri v Safework NSW [2018] NSWCATAD 194

The Tribunal was not satisfied that Mr El Masri, and therefore the company, had the depth of experience or sufficient practical training relevant to restricted demolition work. The evidence showed very limited supervised demolition work with a licensed demolition company, calculated generously at not more than 34 days, most of it gained recently, and there was no evidence of practical on-the-job training complementing that limited experience. The essential criteria for the restricted demolition licence were therefore not met.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Refusal of a Restricted Demolition Licence / Final Decision on Application for Review After Internal Review
Outcome
The decision under review is affirmed.
Legal Topics
['restricted Demolition Licence' 'appropriate Experience' 'practical Training' 'licensed Demolition Work']
['administrative Law' 'work Health and Safety' 'occupational Licensing'] ['restricted Demolition Licence' 'appropriate Experience' 'practical Training' 'licensed Demolition 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 of a Restricted Demolition Licence / Final Decision on Application for Review After Internal Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr El Masri had appropriate experience or training relevant to the carrying out of restricted demolition work for the purposes of a restricted demolition licence.' 'Whether the essential criteria for issuing a restricted demolition licence to Mr El Masri and Royal Demolition and Excavation Pty Limited were met.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was not satisfied that Mr El Masri, and therefore the company, had the depth of experience or sufficient practical training relevant to restricted demolition work. The evidence showed very limited supervised demolition work with a licensed demolition company, calculated generously at not more than 34 days, most of it gained recently, and there was no evidence of practical on-the-job training complementing that limited experience. The essential criteria for the restricted demolition licence were therefore not met.

Court Disposition

The decision under review is affirmed.

Orders

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