Ullrich v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2015] NSWCATAP 80

Ullrich v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2015] NSWCATAP 80

The fresh evidence, including affidavits and oral evidence from Mr Stanley and an affidavit from Mr Naidofski, clarified the appellant's building experience and supervision. Taken as a whole, the evidence established that the appellant had at least two years relevant experience in a wide range of building construction work. The Tribunal below erred in finding otherwise, albeit without the benefit of the additional material. The appeal was therefore allowed, the qualified supervisor certificate was ordered to be granted, and the contractor's licence for Takahe Enterprises Pty Ltd was ordered to issue.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of an Application for a Qualified Supervisor Certificate Under S24 of the Home Building Act 1989 / Appeal Panel Decision After Fresh Evidence Was Admitted
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['qualified Supervisor Certificate' 'general Building Work' 'relevant Industry Experience' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'contractor Licence']
['administrative Law' 'home Building Licensing' 'civil and Administrative Tribunal Appeals'] ['qualified Supervisor Certificate' 'general Building Work' 'relevant Industry Experience' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'contractor Licence']

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

Appeal From a Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of an Application for a Qualified Supervisor Certificate Under S24 of the Home Building Act 1989 / Appeal Panel Decision After Fresh Evidence Was Admitted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether fresh evidence should be admitted pursuant to s80(3) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.' 'Whether the appellant had at least two years relevant industry experience in a wide range of building construction work.' "Whether the appellant's experience under the supervision of Mr Stanley, a registered architect, could be relied upon in light of the requirements applicable when the application was made." "Whether the refusal of the qualified supervisor certificate should be set aside and whether a contractor's licence should issue to Takahe Enterprises Pty Ltd."]

Ratio Decidendi

The fresh evidence, including affidavits and oral evidence from Mr Stanley and an affidavit from Mr Naidofski, clarified the appellant's building experience and supervision. Taken as a whole, the evidence established that the appellant had at least two years relevant experience in a wide range of building construction work. The Tribunal below erred in finding otherwise, albeit without the benefit of the additional material. The appeal was therefore allowed, the qualified supervisor certificate was ordered to be granted, and the contractor's licence for Takahe Enterprises Pty Ltd was ordered to issue.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed' 'Order that a Qualified Supervisor Certificate in the category of "General Building Work" be granted to the appellant.' "Order that a contractor's licence be issued to Takahe Enterprises Pty Ltd." 'No order as to costs']