Cormack v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2006] NSWADT 40

Regulation 25(1)(a)(xii) does not apply as Mr Cormack ceased to be concerned in the management of Corbet following appointment of the liquidator; insufficient reliable evidence was presented to determine whether Mr Cormack is a fit and proper person to hold a contractor's licence, requiring reconsideration by the Commissioner.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 09 February 2006
Procedural Posture: Administrative Review / Tribunal Decision
Outcome: Decision set aside and remitted for reconsideration
Legal Topics: ['contractor Licensing' 'fit and Proper Person Standard' 'liquidation and Management of Companies']

['administrative Law' 'building and Construction Law'] ['contractor Licensing' 'fit and Proper Person Standard' 'liquidation and Management of Companies']

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

Procedural Posture

Administrative Review / Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

1 ['Does Regulation 25(1)(a)(xii) of the Home Building Regulation 2004 disqualify Mr Cormack from holding a contractor licence?' "Is Mr Cormack a 'fit and proper person' to hold a contractor licence?"]

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Decision set aside and remitted for reconsideration

Orders

['The decision of the Commissioner for Fair Trading dated 8 September 2005 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Commissioner for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons']