Grulovic v Queensland Building and Construction Commission
[2018] QCAT 28
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Grulovic v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2018] QCAT 28
- Add to List
Grulovic v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2018] QCAT 28
Grulovic v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2018] QCAT 28
CITATION: | Grulovic v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QCAT 28 |
PARTIES: | Nikola Grulovic (Applicant) v Queensland Building and Construction Commission (Respondent) |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR288-17 |
MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Steven Holzberger |
DELIVERED ON: | 9 January 2018 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | APPLICATION FOR STAY – DECISION OF QBCC TO CANCEL A BUILDING LICENCE – whether it is desirable to stay the decision until the review is determined. Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991, s 48 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, s 22 Burch v Office of Fair Trading (No 2) [2016] QCAT 435 Crinis v Ray White Paradise Group [2016] QCATA 90 Cook’s Construction Pty Ltd v Stork Food Systems Pty Ltd [2008] QCA 322 Deputy Commissioner Stewart v Kennedy [2011] QCATA 254 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).
APPLICANT: | Johanson Lawyers |
RESPONDENT: | Holding Redlich |
REASONS FOR DECISION
- [1]Nikola Grulovic has applied for a review of a decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (“QBCC”) made on 20 November 2017 to suspend its licence pursuant to section 48(j) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (“QBCC Act”). He has also applied for a stay of that decision pending determination of the review application.
- [2]QBCC opposes the stay.
- [3]The decision to suspend Mr Grulovic’s licence issued concurrently with a decision to suspend the licence of My Home Builders Qld Pty Ltd (My Home). Mr Grulovic is the sole director and shareholder of My Home.
- [4]My Home has applied for a review of that decision and a stay of its operation until a decision on the review application is made.
- [5]Both stay applications were determined on the papers on 9 January 2018. I determined that both should be refused. My reasons for decision in respect of My Home’s stay application are attached. Those reasons form the basis for refusal of the stay. My additional reasons and comments are set out below.
- [6]The material relied on by My Home is the review application and stay application filed on 15 December 2017, and an affidavit of its Mr Grulovic sworn on 27 November 2017. The material is in effect the same as the material relied on by My Home in its stay application.
- [7]QBCC relies on statements of Michelle Lockton dated 15 December 2017 and Michelle Cummins dated 14 December 2017 and the written submissions of its lawyers, Holding Redlich dated 15 December 2017. The statements are the same as the statements relied on in the My Home stay application. One set of submissions was lodged in respect of both stay applications.
- [8]QBCC says in effect that the circumstances which lead to the suspension of My Home’s licence demonstrate that Mr Grulovic is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence or to exercise control or influence over a company that holds a licence.
- [9]It says the stay should be refused because the review application has poor prospects of success, a stay is not in the public interest and Mr Grulovic has failed to identify any factors which justify the stay.
- [10]It appears to be accepted by both parties that the decision in respect of both the review and stay applications will follow the decision in the My Home applications. In circumstances where Mr Grulovic relies on material which reflects the material relied on in the My Home stay application that is inevitable.
- [11]I am not satisfied that Mr Grulovic has an inarguable case having regard to the early stage of the proceedings and the complexity of some of the matters raised against My Home.
- [12]However the licencing provisions of the QBCC Act are protective of the public. The public interest, for the reasons set out in the My Home decision favours refusal of the stay. There is nothing in Mr Grulovic’s material which tips the balance of convenience in his favour.