Ullrich v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2014] NSWCATOD 11

Ullrich v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2014] NSWCATOD 11

The Applicant had relevant qualifications, but he did not demonstrate a minimum of two years supervised relevant industry experience in a wide range of building construction work. Mr Stanley did not employ or lawfully engage the Applicant and stated that he did not supervise him; Mr Naidofski's part-time employment reference could not be quantified as a full-time equivalent; and no adequate evidence established the period of work with Mr Frisoli. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to affirm the refusal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of Refusal of a Qualified Supervisor Certificate and Related Contractor Licence Application in the Category of General Building Work / Merits Review; Decision Affirmed
Outcome
The decision is affirmed.
Legal Topics
['qualified Supervisor Certificate' 'contractor Licence' 'relevant Industry Experience' 'supervision and Direction' 'out of Time Application for Review']
['administrative Law' 'occupational Licensing' 'home Building Regulation'] ['qualified Supervisor Certificate' 'contractor Licence' 'relevant Industry Experience' 'supervision and Direction' 'out of Time Application for Review']

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 Review of Refusal of a Qualified Supervisor Certificate and Related Contractor Licence Application in the Category of General Building Work / Merits Review; Decision Affirmed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicant demonstrated a minimum of two years relevant industry experience in a wide range of building construction work.' 'Whether work with architect Garry Stanley qualified as relevant supervised experience under the applicable Instrument.' 'Whether references from other tradespersons or builders established the required two years of experience.' 'Whether time for lodging the application for review should be extended.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant had relevant qualifications, but he did not demonstrate a minimum of two years supervised relevant industry experience in a wide range of building construction work. Mr Stanley did not employ or lawfully engage the Applicant and stated that he did not supervise him; Mr Naidofski's part-time employment reference could not be quantified as a full-time equivalent; and no adequate evidence established the period of work with Mr Frisoli. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to affirm the refusal.

Court Disposition

The decision is affirmed.

Orders

  • ['The decision is affirmed.' 'The same outcome follows in relation to the application made by Takahe Enterprises Pty Ltd.']