Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2015
  4. Zanuttini v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2015] QCAT 286

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Zanuttini v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2015] QCAT 286

Zanuttini v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2015] QCAT 286

CITATION:

Zanuttini v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2015] QCAT 286

PARTIES:

Mario Zanuttini and Renzo Zanuttini

(Applicants)

 

v

 

Queensland Building and Construction Commission

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR303-13 and OCR307-13

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:

25 November 2014

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Ann Fitzpatrick

DELIVERED ON:

13 July 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MDE:

  1. The decision of the Queensland Building Services Authority (now the Queensland Building and Construction Commission), dated 13 November, 2013 to refuse to categorise Mario Zanuttini as a permitted individual is confirmed.
  2. The decision of the Queensland Building Services Authority (now the Queensland Building and Construction Commission), dated 13 November, 2013 to refuse to categorise Renzo Zanuttini as a permitted individual is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

General administrative review matters - builder - permitted individual - debt to Australian Taxation Office and other creditors - reasonable steps to avoid circumstances giving rise to relevant event

Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (Qld) s 56AC, s 56AD;

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 19(c), s 20 and s 24

Younan v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QDC 158

APPEARANCES:

APPLICANT:

Mario Zanuttini and Renzo Zanuttini

RESPONDENT:

Queensland Building and Construction Commission

REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT:

Mario Zanuttini and Renzo Zanuttini, self-represented.

RESPONDENT:

Ms Lorna Taylor, legal counsel for the Queensland Building and Construction Commission,

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

  1. [1]
    Mario Zanuttini and his father Renzo Zanuttini each seek a review of decisions of the Queensland Building Services Authority “QBSA” (now the Queensland Building and Construction Commission – “QBCC”) refusing to categorise them as a “permitted individual” within the terms of section 56AD(1) of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (Qld) (the Act).  Their applications were heard together.
  2. [2]
    The decisions of the QBSA were made on 13 November, 2013 and with respect to each applicant, the QBSA said that it was not satisfied that they had taken all reasonable steps to avoid the coming into existence of circumstances that resulted in “the relevant event”, in the terms of the Act. The relevant event referred to was the appointment of Morgan Lane and Christopher Cook of Worrells Solvency & Forensic Accountants as Liquidators of PGF Building Pty Ltd on 9 October, 2013. As a result of the relevant event the QBCC considered each of Mario and Renzo Zanuttini to be an “excluded individual” in terms of the Act.
  3. [3]
    PGF Building Pty Ltd (the Company) is now known as A.C.N. 010 552 075 Pty Ltd.  Mario Zanuttini was appointed a Director of the Company, on 23 October, 2007.  Renzo Zanuttini was a Director of the Company for the period 7 January, 1985 to 29 August, 2013. At all relevant times Mario Zanuttini and Renzo Zanuttini were Directors or a person of influence with respect to the Company, within the terms of the Act.
  4. [4]
    Both Mario and Renzo Zanuttini gave evidence at the hearing. Their evidence in chief was limited to matters set out in their statements and affidavits filed in the proceedings and made exhibits in the proceedings.  They also relied upon a statement of Paul Babuziente, accountant filed 24 January, 2014.  Mr Babuziente was not called to give evidence.
  5. [5]
    I have had reference to that material together with the material filed by the QBCC, including the affidavits of the decision maker Natasha Dennis, filed 19 February, 2014 and the statement of reasons for each of the decisions.
  6. [6]
    Each of Mario Zanuttini and Renzo Zanuttini hold a licence as “Builder-Open”.  Unless they are categorised as a “permitted individual”, they are unable to hold a “Builder-Open” licence for a period of 5 years from the date of the relevant event.
  7. [7]
    It is the evidence of Mario Zanuttini that the Company frequently contracted to PGF Property Group Pty Ltd (PGF Property), of which Mario Zanuttini was a Director.  PGF Property is a developer.  It is a trustee for the M2 Trust.  PGF Property holds one share in a company Excelsior Group Pty Ltd.  The other share is held by Pasaderia Pty Ltd, as trustee for the Holgarth family Trust.  These relationships are relevant to work conducted by the Company and referred to later in the decision.

Legal framework

  1. [8]
    By s 56AD(8) of the Act, the QBSA may categorise an individual as a permitted individual for the relevant event, only if it is satisfied, on the basis of the application, that the individual took all reasonable steps to avoid the coming into existence of the circumstances that resulted in the happening of the relevant event. Section 56AD(8A) sets out matters to which the QBSA and now the Tribunal, must have regard in determining whether a person took all reasonable steps to avoid the coming into existence of the circumstances that resulted in the happening of the relevant event.
  2. [9]
    By s 24 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act), the Tribunal may confirm or amend the decision of the QBSA to refuse to categorise either Mario or Renzo Zanuttini as a permitted individual.  It may set aside the decision and substitute its own decision; or set aside the decision and return the matter to the decision-maker.
  3. [10]
    As the QBCC has succeeded the QBSA, I will refer to the QBCC in the balance of this decision.
  4. [11]
    By s 19(c) of the QCAT Act, this Tribunal has all the functions of the decision maker, however, it stands in the shoes of the decision maker and makes the decision afresh.  By s 20 of the QCAT Act, the purpose of the review is to produce the correct and preferable decision, following a fresh hearing on the merits.
  5. [12]
    In Younan v Queensland Building Services Authority[1] upheld by the Queensland Court of Appeal[2], his Honour Judge McGill made the following points as to how s 56AD(8) should be interpreted.
  6. [13]
    At (26):

“The test outlined in s 56AD(8) requires first; the identification of the relevant event; second, the identification of the circumstances that resulted in the happening of the relevant event; third, a consideration of whether the relevant individual took all reasonable steps to avoid those circumstances coming into existence; and if satisfied of that, fourth, a decision whether to categorise the individual as a permitted individual.  What were reasonable steps depended on what was reasonable for the individual concerned in the circumstances in which he found himself, with such information as he then had.  It is not a question of whether he did everything possible to prevent these circumstances from arising, or whether they would not have arisen if he had acted differently.  The reasonableness of his behaviour must be assessed by reference to what was known by him at the time, without the benefit of hindsight.”

The relevant event

  1. [14]
    It not in contention that the relevant event was the appointment of liquidators to the Company on 9 October, 2013.

Circumstances giving rise to the relevant event

  1. [15]
    A report to creditors dated 17 October, 2013 prepared by Worrells is attached to the affidavit of the decision maker, Natasha Dennis, affirmed 19 February, 2014.
  2. [16]
    The report records that the Company was the subject of a creditors’ voluntary winding up. As at 9 October, 2013 the Company had 3 secured creditors. As at the date of the report the liquidators were aware that the National Australia Bank (NAB), a secured creditor was owed approximately $270,000.00. Further, there were unsecured creditors totalling $543,660.00.  One of the unsecured creditors was the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), listed as being owed a sum of $85,000.00.
  3. [17]
    As at the date of the report no assets had been located.
  4. [18]
    The circumstances the Zanuttinis describe as leading to the relevant event are set out in Mario Zanuttini’s affidavit, filed 1 September, 2014.  The circumstances are supported by the evidence of Renzo Zanuttini. They include:
    1. (a)
      the death of Mario Zanuttini’s daughter in September 2005, which affected their ability to focus on the business.
    2. (b)
      The death of Haydon Fargus, a developer who was building residential units at Gaythorne.  The Company undertook work on the Gaythorne project during 2010 and 2011, however final payments were delayed as a result of the developer’s death and creditors were not paid on time. Creditors were paid by instalments over time.
    3. (c)
      A liability to the ATO which arose out of profit made on the project at Gaythorne.
    4. (d)
      The impact of the global financial crisis, which affected the availability of projects, the value of a particular project at Waterworks Road, The Gap and the availability of finance for the Waterworks Road project.
    5. (e)
      Difficulties encountered on the Waterworks Road project. That project was undertaken by Excelsior Group Pty Ltd. It was intended to construct mini storage facilities and residential units.  The Company was to undertake the construction work. The difficulties encountered on the project were:
      1. the death of Haydon Fargus who had agreed to fund the project.  The joint venture parties then had to seek alternative funding, which was obtained on certain conditions from NAB.
      2. The impact of the global financial crisis, so that as from October or November, 2010 finance could not be obtained from NAB and the value of the property dropped from the 2009 valuation of $7.1 million to $3.5million.
      3. Civil work undertaken on the site was affected by the serious rain events of December, 2010/January, 2011. A 6 metre cut had been made next to an adjacent property, however  subsidence occurred, threatening the neighbouring house.  Urgent work to anchor the cut section was required. The Company purchased steel and concrete and undertook much of the anchoring work. Final work was not completed until Christmas 2011. The Company engaged Team Rock Anchors to do work at a cost of approximately $177,000.00.  Team Rock Anchors was paid approximately $100,000.00 of their claim.
      4. Only $30,000.00 - $40,000.00 was paid to the Company following a claim on its All Risks insurance policy arising out of the subsidence issue.
      5. In March, 2013 an agreement to sell the property to Mascart Pty Ltd for $3m was reached.  Agreement was also reached with the NAB for the proceeds of sale to discharge a $4.5 million debt by the Company.  Settlement was delayed for many months until October, 2013.
    6. (f)
      A dispute with a plumbing sub-contractor, Shiandra Plumbing, on a project at 188 Cliveden Avenue, Corinda. The project commenced in September, 2012.  The dispute involved defective plumbing work. The Company bore the cost of rectification and suffered delays in completion.  The Company incurred a loss of approximately $154,947.95 as a result.  The dispute is said to have had a significant impact on cash-flow.
    7. (g)
      Shiandra Plumbing obtained an adjudication decision against the Company for money owing to it on the Corinda job.  A Statutory Demand was delivered by Shiandra, which required an application to have the Demand set aside.
    8. (h)
      Advice was taken from “No Limits Finance” in relation to the Company’s debts. In particular Team Rock Anchors was pressing for payment. Mario Zanuttini held a concern that the Company could not pay its debts as they fell due.  It was recommended in September, 2013 that the Company be placed into voluntary liquidation.
  5. [19]
    The QBCC submit that based on the material provided by the applicants the circumstances giving rise to the relevant event were:
    1. (a)
      the Company operating with increasing losses over consecutive years;
    2. (b)
      insufficient working capital;
    3. (c)
      unpaid debts from the Gaythorne Project in 2009/2010 as evidenced by the volume of creditors still owed at the time of the liquidation in 2013;
    4. (d)
      the unpaid debt to Team Rock Anchors, creditor from the Waterworks Road Project;
    5. (e)
      incorrect financial statements
    6. (f)
      no financial advice sought before entering into financial or business arrangements or conducting business;
    7. (g)
      the Company continuing to incur debt when it had no means to pay.
  6. [20]
    I find that the circumstances directly giving rise to the relevant event were the debts owed by the Company and the lack of any apparent means of paying those debts. The relevant context for that indebtedness is the events described by Mario and Renzo Zanuttini. Arguably, the indebtedness also arose out of the conduct of the affairs of the Company by its Directors, as described by the QBCC.  Both the events described by the Zanuttinis and their conduct as Directors are best considered in an analysis of whether the applicants took all reasonable steps to avoid the indebtedness which resulted in the liquidation of the Company.

Did the applicants take all reasonable steps to avoid the circumstances that resulted in the happening of the relevant event?

  1. [21]
    I accept the evidence of Mario and Renzo Zanuttini and find that the events they describe did occur.
  2. [22]
    Mario Zanuttini gave most of the evidence in this matter.  It is apparent that he was the more active of the two Directors in the conduct of the affairs of the Company. There is no evidence that Renzo Zanuttini objected to any step taken by Mario Zanuttini.  Accordingly, I find that any steps taken in the conduct of the affairs of the company are attributable to both Directors.
  3. [23]
    The applicants’ evidence is that the Company:
    1. (a)
      gradually paid down debts to trade creditors;
    2. (b)
      sought legal advice to meet the problems the Company confronted as they arose, including with respect to the Waterworks Road project, the subsidence issue and the Shiandra debt;
    3. (c)
      took action to save the house neighbouring the Waterworks Road project using its funds as the only available funds, given the emergency situation; and
    4. (d)
      took financial advice in relation to its indebtedness.
  4. [24]
    Mario Zanuttini’s evidence is that he actively sought a purchaser for the Waterworks Road project.
  5. [25]
    The question is whether those steps were reasonable in the face of the issues the Company confronted. The QBCC submits those steps were merely reactive to problems as they arose and there were fundamental issues of good financial and business management not attended to which contributed to the circumstances that resulted in the happening of the relevant event.
  6. [26]
    The QBCC submits that the applicants knew that the Company was carrying debts and taxation liability for a period of almost 2 years when it carried out work for Excelsior in circumstances where it could have had no expectation of payment. It carried out that work without a contract and without issuing an invoice.  Instead of paying its creditors and the ATO, the Company used its money to carry out emergency work for a third party when it had no obligation to do so. Based on the evidence of Mario Zanuttini, I find that under the control of the applicants as Directors, the Company did conduct its affairs in this way. 
  7. [27]
    Under cross examination Mario Zanuttini agreed that the Company was not a party to the Waterworks Road joint venture and that it had no obligation to meet the debts of PGF Property, however, as it had profit from the Gaythorne project and other money it paid Team Rock Anchors and borrowed to undertake work on the site.  Mario Zanuttini agreed that as a result tax was not paid by the Company and the Gaythorne creditors had to be put “on the drip”.
  8. [28]
    Mario Zanuttini agreed that no written contract was entered into by the Company for the work it did on the Waterworks Road project and no invoice was raised for its work.
  9. [29]
    It was put to Mario Zanuttini that the Company carried out work even though the joint venture, Excelsior, had no funds to carry out rectification work on the wall and there was no invoice for the work from the Company.  Mario Zanuttini did not deny this was the case, but responded that it was a necessity to do the work because of the risk to the neighbouring house.
  10. [30]
    It was put to Mario Zanuttini that the reason the Company went into liquidation was the failure to pay the Gaythorne creditors and the fact that it paid for work on the Waterworks Road project. Mario Zanuttini maintained that his current view is that the Company could have traded out of its indebtedness and that the advice to liquidate was bad advice. I note that was not his view as at the date of the liquidation and no accounting evidence was called to support his assertion.
  11. [31]
    Of the matters set out in section 56AD(8A) of the Act which are relevant to this matter, the QBCC submits that the applicants:
    1. (a)
      did not keep proper books of account and financial records;
    2. (b)
      did not make appropriate provision for Commonwealth and State taxation debts; and
    3. (c)
      did not seek appropriate financial or legal advice before entering into financial or business arrangements or conducting business.

Failure to keep proper books of account and financial records

  1. [32]
    During cross-examination, a number of issues were raised with Mario Zanuttini as part of a suggestion that as Director, he had failed to keep proper books and records.
  2. [33]
    It was pointed out to Mario Zanuttini that the financial statements for the Company, for the period 30 June, 2012 and 2013 (attached to Exhibit 2 in the proceedings), reveal work in progress for the Company of $316,000.00 each year.  That was said to be money owed to the Company for work on the Waterworks Road wall.  It was suggested in cross-examination, that Mario Zanuttini had deliberately entered amounts in the financial statements which could not be paid. Mario Zanuttini responded that if the project had proceeded the Company would have been paid. However the global financial crisis caused the NAB to withdraw its loan for the project. He explained that when it was apparent no moneys could be paid to the Company, the work in progress figure was removed.  I do not find this a credible response given Mario Zanuttini’s evidence that NAB refused to finance the project from October or November, 2010 and that PGF Property had no capacity to borrow. It should have been evident well before 30 June, 2012 and 30 June, 2013 that the debt would not be paid.
  3. [34]
    Mario Zanuttini could not explain why no work in progress was recorded in the 2013 financial statements for the jobs undertaken during the period.  The Company’s bookkeeper and its accountant were not called to give evidence.
  4. [35]
    Mario Zanuttini was referred to the entries in the 2011, 2012 and 2013 balance sheets, which showed a current liability for trade creditors each year of $5,000.00.  It was suggested in cross-examination, that the books and records do not relate to the actual trade creditors. Mario Zanuttini gave evidence that the $5,000.00 entry was the accountant’s fees and that other creditors were separately accounted for, not reflected in the balance sheet.  It was put that the Company’s income tax returns did not reflect the real position. Mario Zanuttini said that creditors were paid on a running balance and that his bookkeeper prepared the Business Activity Statements on a cash basis.  He said that the Company’s accountant had told him the returns were prepared on a “cash basis”.  Mario Zanuttini said that he relied on his bookkeeper and he was not sure why trade creditors were not showing on the balance sheet. I do not accept Mario Zanuttini’s explanation, particularly in the absence of evidence from the Company’s bookkeeper or accountant.
  5. [36]
    The next issue related to Directors loans recorded in the June, 2012 financial statements at $83,000.00 and then in the 2013 financial statements at $10,450.00.  Mario Zanuttini denied that any payment had been made by the Company to the Directors, and said that the accountant had “just balanced out all the loans”. He said that the accountant would have to explain the loans, but he was not available to give evidence. Mario Zanuttini’s explanation is unacceptable in the absence of evidence from the Company’s accountant.
  6. [37]
    Mario Zanuttini was asked about the claim on the Company’s insurer in relation to the subsiding wall.  He confirmed that funds received from the insurer went to the Company and were used to pay creditors.  He could not say where the payment was recorded in the financial statements of the Company.
  7. [38]
    I find the responses of Mario Zanuttini to these issues unsatisfactory. On the basis of Mario Zanuttini’s evidence I find that he did not ensure the Company kept proper books of account and financial records.
  8. [39]
    Renzo Zanuttini said in cross-examination that his role in the Company was to make sure that bills and wages were paid.  He said that once the Waterworks Road venture started his role in the Company diminished, but he did sign the financial statements.  When asked if he checked the financial statements he said that the accountant explained them.  I make the point again that there is no relevant evidence from the accountant for the Company.  In adopting a merely passive role, I find that Renzo Zanuttini did not ensure the Company kept proper books of account and financial records.

Make appropriate provision for taxation

  1. [40]
    In relation to provision for taxation, Mario Zanuttini’s evidence is that tax had been paid when it fell due, prior to the problem on the Waterworks Road project. He said that profit from the Gaythorne project, which would have been used for a tax payment was used on the Waterworks Road project.  After that, he had been counting on a sale of the property to attend to the tax bill, but that was delayed.  He said that if the Company’s funds had been used to pay the ATO, the house next to the Waterworks Road project would have fallen down. Mario Zanuttini said that an instalment arrangement was entered into with the ATO, but the Company could only meet the first instalment and nothing after that.
  2. [41]
    I find that neither Mario nor Renzo Zanuttini ensured that the Company made provision for taxation. I do not consider that it was reasonable for the assets of the Company to have been exhausted to meet the liabilities of another company rather than to meet its own debts. This is particularly so because there was no proper documentation or security for the work done. I do not consider the urgency of the risk to the adjoining property justified the conduct of the Directors. The subsidence issue was not the Company’s problem. The subsidence issue was the problem of the joint venture parties and the owner of the adjoining property to be resolved on the basis of their resources and legal rights.

Obtaining legal and financial advice before entering business arrangements or conducting business

  1. [42]
    Mario Zanuttini was asked in cross-examination whether he took advice before commencing the Waterworks Road project.  He said that he took verbal advice from his lawyer and also took financial advice, both to the effect that another equity partner was needed after the death of Haydon Fargus. There is no evidence that any legal or financial advice was taken in relation to the prudence of the Company borrowing money and performing work for the joint venture when the joint venture had no capacity to borrow or to pay for the work. I find that neither Mario nor Renzo Zanuttini sought appropriate financial or legal advice before committing the Company to significant further indebtedness.   Mario Zanuttini’s evidence is that the approach he took was the only available approach and that it was undertaken without regard to “the niceties or even the legalities, of who was doing what.”[3] He said that legal advice was sought in relation to the subsidence problem but the advice was not to pursue the relevant engineers because of the cost of proceedings and doubt as to liability.  There is no evidence from any lawyer in relation to this advice.  In any event, it is not advice taken by the Company in relation to its rights and liabilities.
  2. [43]
    With respect to the Shianda debt, Mario Zanuttini’s evidence is that the Company was advised not to pursue its debt from Shiandra because of the risk of non-recovery.  There is no evidence before the Tribunal from a lawyer in this regard.  The evidence suggests that the dispute with Shiandra was allowed to slide to the point where it was necessary to set aside a statutory demand. I find that advice was not taken in relation to appropriate management of the Shianda dispute.
  3. [44]
    On the basis of these matters, I conclude that Mario and Renzo Zanuttini did not adopt good financial and business management in the conduct of the affairs of the Company.  I accept the submission of the QBCC that the steps taken by the Directors were reactive and that there was a lack of fundamental financial and business management.
  4. [45]
    Good financial and business management, in terms of keeping accurate books and records, providing for payment of taxation and seeking appropriate legal and financial advice, would have assisted the Directors to make prudent decisions to avoid the indebtedness, which led to the liquidation of the Company.  Even apart from this general proposition, I am required to consider whether the Directors took all reasonable steps to avoid indebtedness to their creditors, given the circumstances in which they found themselves, knowing what they knew at the time and without the benefit of hindsight.
  5. [46]
    The critical time for consideration, is when the Directors decided to use the Company’s profit from the Gaythorne project to borrow funds and to undertake rectification work at Waterworks Road during 2011.  On the one hand, they knew the risk subsidence of the wall posed to the neighbouring property.  That was the issue which they allowed to colour all subsequent decision making.  On the other hand, they knew that it was not the Company’s responsibility to borrow more money and to do the rectification work.  They knew that it was the responsibility of the joint venture to resolve the subsidence issue. They knew the joint venture had no capacity to borrow or to pay the Company for its work. They knew that the Waterworks Road property would have to be sold for a sufficient price to repay the Company and see its creditors paid.  On this point, they knew from a Landmark White valuation report, dated 1 April, 2009 that sale of the property would be problematic in the climate of the global financial crisis.[4] Further, they knew of the reduced valuation made by NAB in October/November, 2010. I also note the very significant debt being carried by the Company at that time and which continued to grow.  Although no detail is given as to when the debts arose, it appears from Mario Zanuttini’s affidavit, sworn 29 August, 2014, that by March, 2013 the Company’s debt to NAB alone was “in the order of $4.5m.”[5]
  6. [47]
    I find that the Directors did not take reasonable steps to avoid the indebtedness of the Company.  The steps they took to commit the Company to further borrowings and to undertake rectification work made it highly unlikely that the Company’s creditors would be paid.  They took no reasonable steps at the critical point in time, to avoid the indebtedness of the Company which gave rise to the liquidation. In fact they acted recklessly without regard “to the niceties or even the legalities, of who was doing what”.[6] Further, profit from the Corinda project conducted in 2012, which could have reduced indebtedness to creditors, was lost because of a dispute with a subcontractor, which was allowed to escalate to the point where it was necessary to apply to set aside a statutory demand lodged against the Company.  Again there was a failure to take reasonable steps to avoid the indebtedness of the Company.
  7. [48]
    As a result of this finding I do not consider that any discretion should be exercised in favour of Mario or Renzo Zanuttini to be classified as permitted individuals.

Orders

  1. [49]
    I order that the decision of the Queensland Building Services Authority (now the Queensland Building and Construction Commission), dated 13 November, 2013 to refuse to categorise Mario Zanuttini as a permitted individual is confirmed.
  2. [50]
    I order that the decision of the Queensland Building Services Authority (now the Queensland Building and Construction Commission), dated 13 November, 2013 to refuse to categorise Renzo Zanuttini as a permitted individual is confirmed.

Footnotes

[1]  [2010] QDC 158.

[2] Younan v Queensland Building Services Authority [2011] QCA 1.

[3]  Paragraph 31, Affidavit of Mario Zanuttini, sworn 29 August, 2014 (Exhibit 1).

[4]  Attachment to the Affidavit of Mario Zanuttini, sworn 29 August, 2014, at page184 and in particular at page 187 (Exhibit 1 in the proceedings).

[5]  Exhibit 1 in the proceedings at para 61.

[6]  Ibid at para 31.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Zanuttini v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Zanuttini v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

  • MNC:

    [2015] QCAT 286

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Fitzpatrick

  • Date:

    13 Jul 2015

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Younan v Queensland Building Services Authority [2011] QCA 1
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QCA 1
Younan v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QDC 158
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2010] QDC 158
Cite 2 - [2010] QDC 158

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.