Lovich v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2015] NSWCATAP 208

Lovich v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2015] NSWCATAP 208

The Tribunal did not construe the 2013 Instrument as mandating experience in construction of new buildings. Properly read, its reasons concerned the need for relevant experience including both basic construction skills and administrative skills required in the construction industry. Mr Lovich's lack of experience in new building work was a relevant and permissible consideration in deciding whether he had at least two years relevant experience in a wide range of building construction work. No error of law was shown, and no Collins v Urban circumstances justified leave to appeal on other grounds or the admission of fresh evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Refusal of Contractor Licence for General Building Work Under the Home Building Act 1989 (nsw) / Appeal Panel From Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Occupational Division Decision Dated 17 October 2014
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['review of Decision to Grant Contractor Licence' 'experience Requirement' 'meaning of "a Wide Range of Building Construction Work"' 'leave to Appeal' 'fresh Evidence']
['administrative Law' 'home Building and Contractor Licensing'] ['review of Decision to Grant Contractor Licence' 'experience Requirement' 'meaning of "a Wide Range of Building Construction Work"' 'leave to Appeal' 'fresh Evidence']

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 Concerning Refusal of Contractor Licence for General Building Work Under the Home Building Act 1989 (nsw) / Appeal Panel From Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Occupational Division Decision Dated 17 October 2014

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal misapplied the 2013 Instrument by effectively requiring experience in new building work to satisfy the requirement of at least two years relevant industry experience in a wide range of building construction work.' 'Whether leave to appeal on other grounds should be granted under s 80(2)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).' 'Whether fresh evidence should be admitted under s 80(3)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not construe the 2013 Instrument as mandating experience in construction of new buildings. Properly read, its reasons concerned the need for relevant experience including both basic construction skills and administrative skills required in the construction industry. Mr Lovich's lack of experience in new building work was a relevant and permissible consideration in deciding whether he had at least two years relevant experience in a wide range of building construction work. No error of law was shown, and no Collins v Urban circumstances justified leave to appeal on other grounds or the admission of fresh evidence.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']