Aziz v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATOD 95

Aziz v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATOD 95

The applicant did not satisfy the experience requirement because, although he had a broad range of electrical work experience and met the education requirements, the Instrument required the claimed experience to be paid employment, and the evidence established only approximately 16 weeks of remunerated qualifying experience rather than the required 12 months. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to affirm the refusal of the licence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Administrative Review of Refusal of an Individual Contractor Licence in the Category of Electrical Work / Review of Respondent's Decision, Affirmed on Internal Review
Outcome
Respondent's decision affirmed
Legal Topics
['individual Contractor Licence' 'electrical Work' 'experience Requirements' 'paid Employment' 'lawfully Gained Experience']
['administrative Law' 'occupational Licensing' 'home Building Regulation'] ['individual Contractor Licence' 'electrical Work' 'experience Requirements' 'paid Employment' 'lawfully Gained 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

Application for Administrative Review of Refusal of an Individual Contractor Licence in the Category of Electrical Work / Review of Respondent's Decision, Affirmed on Internal Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant satisfied the experience requirement for an individual contractor licence in the category of electrical work under the Home Building Act 1989 and the Commissioner's Instrument." 'Whether unpaid or volunteer electrical work could be counted as relevant experience for the licence application.' "Whether the respondent's refusal of the licence was the correct and preferable decision."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not satisfy the experience requirement because, although he had a broad range of electrical work experience and met the education requirements, the Instrument required the claimed experience to be paid employment, and the evidence established only approximately 16 weeks of remunerated qualifying experience rather than the required 12 months. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to affirm the refusal of the licence.

Court Disposition

Respondent's decision affirmed

Orders

  • ["The Respondent's decision to refuse the applicant's application for an individual contractor licence in the category of electrical work is affirmed."]