Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2024
  4. Hajrudin Harry Turcinovic v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2024] QCAT 48

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

Hajrudin Harry Turcinovic v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2024] QCAT 48

Hajrudin Harry Turcinovic v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2024] QCAT 48

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Hajrudin Harry Turcinovic v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2024] QCAT 48

PARTIES:

Hajrudin Harry Turcinovic

(applicant)

v

queensland building and Construction Commission

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR211-21

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

31 January 2024

HEARING DATE:

29 September 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Carrigan

ORDERS:

  1. The Tribunal orders that the Decision Notice of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission made on 1 June 2021 to decline the Builder Low Rise (BLR) contractor licence application made by Hajrudin Harry Turcinovic on 6 April 2021 is confirmed.
  2. The Application to review a decision filed in the Tribunal on 9 July 2021 by the Applicant is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – BUILDERS – LICENCES AND REGISTRATION – whether applicant has technical qualifications – whether the applicant has experience required for the class of license – whether applicant is a fit and proper person

Queensland Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 10, s 11, s 17, s 18, s 19, s 20, s 24

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 33(1)(a), s 33(1)(b), s 31(3), s 86(1)(a), s 86E, s 87

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld), Part 4, s 2, s 5

Richards & Anor v Queensland Building and Construction Commission (2019) QCAT 372.

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

 

Applicant:

Mr E Mirascija, Solicitor.

Respondent:

Mr S Seefeld of Counsel instructed by K Milward of Holding Redlich, Lawyers.

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    On 11 February 2021 Hajrudin Harry Turcinovic (Applicant) made application to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) for a contractors licence in the class of Builder Low Rise. (BLR)
  2. [2]
    On 6 April 2021 the Commission notified the Applicant that as he had failed to provide further information to the Commission in order to process the application, his application for a contractors BLR licence has been refused. The Applicant then sought an internal review of that decision.
  3. [3]
    The internal review was conducted and on 1 June 2021 the Commission notified the Applicant that it confirmed the original decision made on 6 April 2021 as it was not satisfied that the Applicant had provided sufficient information to satisfy the following criteria:
    1. the qualifications required;
    2. the experience required;
    3. fit and proper person to hold a licence.
  4. [4]
    On 9 July 2021 the Applicant applied to the Tribunal to review the decision of QBCC made on 1 June 2021.

Background Facts.

  1. [5]
    On 23 June 1994 the Applicant was issued with a House Building and General Building licence by the Queensland Building Services Authority.
  2. [6]
    In 1998 the Applicant successfully completed a House Builders Licensing course and received a Statement of Attainment.
  3. [7]
    On 15 October 2004 the Applicant obtained an Interim Award Notification from the Gold Coast Institute of TAFE certifying that he had successfully completed the 14 Modules for the Builder- Low Rise Qualification.
  4. [8]
    On 15 May 2005 the Applicant obtained a Certificate of Attainment from Master Builders Training as a result of fulfilling the Completed Residential Building Inspectors Course.[1]
  5. [9]
    On 28 July 2011 the Applicant’s licence was cancelled for contravention of s 36 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (QBCC Act) relating to his financial capacity to hold the licence.
  6. [10]
    On 16 February 2015 the Applicant reapplied for a BLR licence. This application was refused by QBCC on 29 July 2015 as it considered the Applicant was not a fit and proper person as he had:
    1. Filed to comply with 15 of 17 directions to rectify issued between 2009 and 2015;
    2. Failed to comply with directions resulting in insurance claims under the home warranty scheme being paid by QBCC in excess of $200,000.00;
    3. Multiple prosecutions and disciplinary proceedings for offences against the Act which included unlicensed contracting, failure to pay appropriate insurance premiums and failure to rectify defective work;
    4. Multiple building disputes in QCAT which involved claims for money owed. 
  7. [11]
    The Applicant appealed that decision on 12 August 2016.
  8. [12]
    In August 2017 bankruptcy proceedings were commenced by QBCC against the Applicant for an unpaid judgement debt awarded by the Queensland Court of Appeal.
  9. [13]
    On 30 November 2017 the Applicant was made bankrupt on a petition filed by QBCC as a result of the outstanding unpaid judgement debt.
  10. [14]
    On 18 February 2018 QBCC determined that the Applicant was an “Excluded Individual” within the meaning of the QBCC Act as a result of his bankruptcy. As an excluded individual he was not entitled to hold a building licence for the period of the exclusion.
  11. [15]
    On 2 November 2018 the Applicant was issued a Site Supervisors BLR Licence by QBCC.
  12. [16]
    On 30 November 2020 the Applicant was discharged from his bankruptcy.
  13. [17]
    On 11 February 2021 the Applicant made application to QBCC for a contractors BLR licence.
  14. [18]
    On 15 February 2021 QBCC requested the Applicant to supply his technical qualifications information in support of the application.
  15. [19]
    On 6 April 2021 QBCC refused the Application. The Applicant then sought an internal review of that decision.
  16. [20]
    QBCC conducted an internal review and on 1 June 2021 confirmed the earlier decision not to grant the Applicant a BLR licence on the grounds that he had not demonstrated sufficient technical qualifications and experience. In these circumstances, it was not necessary for QBCC to consider whether the Applicant was a fit and proper person to hold such a licence.
  17. [21]
    On 9 July 2021 the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of QBCC decision of 1 June 2021.

Review Jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

  1. [22]
    The Tribunal has the jurisdiction conferred by the QCAT Act and an “enabling Act”.[2]
  2. [23]
    A decision by QBCC to refuse an application for a licence is a reviewable decision.[3]
  3. [24]
    A person affected by a reviewable decision may apply, in accordance with the QCAT Act, to the Tribunal for a review of the decision.[4]
  4. [25]
    The QBCC Act is for the purpose of these proceedings the enabling Act.
  5. [26]
    The Tribunal can exercise its jurisdiction to review the QBCC decision provided an application has been made to the Tribunal.[5] The Applicant applied to the Tribunal on 9 July 2021 to review the decision made by QBCC. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine these proceedings.
  6. [27]
    The Tribunal has all the functions of the Commission for the reviewable decision and must decide the review in accordance with the QCAT Act and the QBCC Act.[6]
  7. [28]
    The Tribunal must hear and decide the Application by way of a fresh hearing on the merits and is to produce the correct and preferable decision.[7]
  8. [29]
    In these proceedings the Tribunal may;[8]
    1. confirm or amend the decision being reviewed; or
    2. set aside the decision and substitute its own decision; or
    3. set aside the decision and return the matter for reconsideration to the Commissioner with the directions the Tribunal considers appropriate.

The Issues to be Determined by the Tribunal.

  1. [30]
    For the Applicant to obtain the BLR licence there must be evidence establishing that the entitlement to that licence satisfies the relevant criteria in s 31 of the QBCC Act.
  2. [31]
    The dispute between the Applicant and QBCC is whether there is evidence to satisfy the following criteria in s 31 of the QBCC Act:
    1. whether the Applicant has the qualifications required for the BDL licence;
    2. whether the Applicant has the experience required for the BDL licence;
    3. whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold the BDL licence.

Otherwise, it is common ground between the Applicant and QBCC that there is sufficient evidence in these proceedings satisfying the remainder of the criteria in s 31 of the QBCC Act.

Does the Applicant have the Qualifications Required for the BLR Licence.

  1. [32]
    Notwithstanding the controversy about the Applicants technical qualifications, at the commencement of the hearing, the Applicant tendered in evidence a Certificate IV from TAFE Queensland dated 24 May 2022 stating that the Applicant had fulfilled the requirements for Certificate IV in Building and Construction (Building) in course CPC40110. This certificate was made an exhibit in the proceedings.[9]
  2. [33]
    Notwithstanding the late notice of the existence of this Certificate, Mr Seefeld of Counsel took instructions from his Instructing Solicitors and informed the Tribunal that this Certificate now satisfied the criteria are under s 33(1)(b) of the QBCC Act for the requisite technical qualifications for the builders license sought by the Applicant.
  3. [34]
    The acceptance of the certificate as satisfying the requirement for the technical qualifications disposed of this issue in favour of the Applicant but left to be determined the remaining two issues of experience and fit and proper person.

Does the Applicant have the “Experience” Required for the BLR Licence.

  1. [35]
    An Applicant for a contractors BLR licence must demonstrate that they have the experience required by the regulation. The appropriate regulation is the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld) (the Regulation).
  2. [36]
    The Regulation specifies that for a contractors BLR licence, the experience required is two (2) years[10]in:[11]
    1. the scope of works for the class of license applied for; or
    2. other work the Commissioner is satisfied is at least equivalent to experience in the scope of works for the class.

The “Scope of Works” is also specified in the Regulation to include the following building work;[12]

  1. Building work on a class 1 or class 10 building;
  2. Building work on classes 2 to 9 buildings with a gross floor area not more than 2000 m², but not including Type A or Type B construction;
  3. Building work that consists of non-structural work on a building, regardless of-
    1. the class for the building; or
    2. the gross floor area of the building.
  4. Prepare plans and specifications that are –
    1. for the licensee’s personal use; or
    2. for the use in building work to be formed by the licensee personally.
  1. [37]
    Applicants for the contractors BLR licence are required to demonstrate evidence that they have building the experience in the scope of works for various stages of the building which include:
    1. Preliminary building stage;
    2. Base stage;
    3. Frame stage;
    4. Enclosed stage;
    5. Fit-out stage;
    6. Practical Completion stage;
    7. Project management.
  2. [38]
    In addition to demonstrating that the Applicant has the critical skills area relevant to the licence at least 50% of the experience includes work exclusive of the license class. The relevant experience relied upon has to be supported by evidence and be validated by a licensed builder (Referee) holding the same class of license or higher than the contractors BLR licence. Any validation by the Referee is required to support the Applicant’s experience and performance with details of:
    1. site details for each project;
    2. principal contractor or employer for each project;
    3. supervisor for each project;
    4. scope of works for each project;
    5. actual time the Applicants spent on the job.
  3. [39]
    Following the completion of the hearing, the Applicant filed in the Tribunal Written Submissions[13] in which he asserted that he has had more than the required two (2) years relevant experience as he has been involved in the building industry for almost 30 years. He submits he has provided sufficient evidence to enable an assessment to be made of his work experience. He also refers to the BLR licence which he held from 18 October 2004 and said he has undertaken 36 residential construction projects. He also submits that further evidence of work experiences has been provided by Referee Reports and these should be taken into consideration. He also says that QBCC should have required the Applicant to attend an interview if they had any doubts about his skills and experience in the building and construction industry.
  4. [40]
    When the Applicant applied to QBCC for the contractors BLR licence no details were provided as to his experience in the building industry.[14] However, he subsequently provided a “Fact Sheet” providing commentary in relation to the typical stages of a building without identifying any particular project, building, or job nor did he explain the extent and nature of his involvement in each relevant stage of construction of the building.[15] He also provided to QBCC a “Referee Report” (signed by the Applicant) setting out his own experience at projects at Acacia Ridge, New Farm Tafe, Coopers Plains, construction of several town houses and new homes as well as renovating Queenslander homes throughout Brisbane but with no details of each of those matters and stating that in support of his experience he has:[16]

over 30 years in Building industry and had Quality Management System in place.

  1. [41]
    In the Application to review QBCC decision, the Applicant states that his past knowledge of the building industry should have been taken into account and that he should not have been placed at the same level as someone who has just finished school and started entering the building industry.[17] The Applicant attaches documentations from proceedings in the Supreme Court filed on 18 June 2015 relating to various projects that were a subject of a previous dispute involving the QBCC.
  2. [42]
    QBCC made requests for the Applicant to provide details of his building experience in accordance with the “Builder and Designer Experience Form” and to provide “Referee Reports”. The Applicant provided details on 18 February 2021 which included the following:
    1. A Curriculum Vitae stating the Applicant had “completed many projects” over a period of 15 years in Townsville including Federal Aviation Airport buildings, refurbishment of Queensland Nickel officers and other works including subsequent work in the Commercial area in Brisbane for an unspecified time’ and
    2. a number of other supporting documents.
  3. [43]
    It was not until 19 March 2021 that the Applicant’s solicitor sent to QBCC details of the Applicants building experience in the “Builder and the Designer Experience Form”. The Applicant nominated the following work history:[18]
    1. 18 Beanga Street, Greenslopes;
    2. 30 Mary Street, City East;
    3. 247 Bradman Street, Acacia Ridge;
    4. 142 Ekebin Road, Tarragindi; and

The Applicant also nominated Dejan Djakovic, David Horn and David (Dzevad) Harambasic as his referees.

  1. [44]
    The Applicant filed further material[19] in the Tribunal’s proceedings setting out various matters asserting that his application for the contractors BLR licence provided sufficient information along with completed referees reports to verify experience as advised in Annexure 6A. The Applicant also referred to previous dealings with QBCC relating to 60 Denham Street, Tarragindi and Unit 44A Sexton Street, Tarrragindi.
  2. [45]
    QBCC undertook an assessment of the Applicants referees reports. It found that the referees reports were incomplete and provided insufficient detail in order to confirm the Applicant’s role and responsibility for the projects. In addition, the Referee Report from Mr David Horn could not be taken into account in the assessment as that Referee held a lower class of license than that of contractor BLR licence and secondly, that Referee had not held a licence since 2014.
  3. [46]
    The evidence before the Tribunal is that in general terms the Applicant has had experience as a licensed builder for many years. However, the Applicant does not give any details or explanation of what he did while he was gaining experience as a previously licenced builder. For example, his Curriculum Vitae explains in general terms that experience but does not provide the particulars or details of that experience that is required under the Regulation. That experience extends beyond the requisite two years but does not provide sufficient detail to satisfy the “Scope of Works” requirements in that Regulation.
  4. [47]
    The Applicant has nominated his work history with “Job Details” in the “Builder and Designer Experience Form” provided to QBCC on 19 March 2021. That experience relates to:[20]
    1. 18 Beanga Street, Greenslopes from February 2007 to March 2007;
    2. 30 Mary Street, City East from March 2010 to May 2010;
    3. 247 Bradman Street, Acacia Ridge from August 2009 to October 2009;
    4. 247 Bradman Street, Acacia Ridge from June 2010 to November 2010; and
    5. 142 Ekebin Road, Tarragindi from January 2011 to February 2012.
  5. [48]
    The cumulative period for the above work history exceeds two (2) years. However, the Applicant has not provided any details of the “Scope of Works” required by the Regulation. Further, there does not appear to be any Referees Reports supporting the Applicant in relation to the experienced claimed in the Form dated 19 March 2021. The Applicants is unable to verify his experience claimed in that Form.
  6. [49]
    The Applicant provided a number of Referee Reports. One such Report dated 17 March 2021 is by Dzevad Harambasic, a builder sole trader, who has known the Applicant more than 10 years and states:[21]

He is capable to manage and take responsibility in activity involved in all segments of building site work from assessment and preparation of site to the final building stages.

He has built through daily contacts on the building site an excellent platform for his successful professional position in a very exciting and highly demanding industry.

  1. [50]
    This Report does not provide any demonstrated experience by the Applicant in conducting building work as it does not provide details or any particulars relating to any projects in which the Applicant conducted building work. It does not provide details of who was the principal contractor or employer of any project and significantly does not provide any scope of works for any projects in which the Referee claims the Applicant was engaged and fails to provide any details of the time the Applicant spent working on that project. The Report is inadequate in supplying any relevant information from which a decision could be made in terms of validating the Applicants experience and performance in the relevant building industry class for which the application has been made.
  2. [51]
    A Referee Report dated 5 March 2021 was provided by Dan Djakovic, who says that he has known the Applicant for over 10 years and states:[22]

During that period, I was engaged as a structural engineer on most of the projects undertaken by Mr Turcinovic.

As a design and inspecting engineer, I have been in daily communication with Mr Turcinovic. All work carried out by him was of a good quality and on time. There was no need for rectification.

Mr Turcinovic has a sound knowledge and understanding of building industry, and is capable to resolve and coordinate projects of a significant complexity. He is quick to grasp any potential problem and suggest acceptable solution.

  1. [52]
    Dejan (Dan) Djakovic provided a further Referee Report dated 30 April 2021 setting out the Applicants experience in relation to the following properties:
    1. 18 Rialto Street, Coorparoo where the Applicant was the contractor for alterations to existing residence from June 2007 to August 2008. The evidence from QBCC is that the Commission’s Construction Notification (CN) records confirms the Applicant as the principal contractor with a contract date of 30 August 2008 being a year after the Referee stated the Applicant was involved in completion of the project. The CN record further states the project was for a new building, not an alteration to an existing building.
    2. 42 Sexton Street, Annerley where the Applicant was the contractor for a residential project from 2009 to 2011. The evidence from the QBCC is that the CN records confirm the Applicant was the principal contractor for the project from 15 February 2010 which is approximately a year after the Referee stated the Applicant was involved in the project.
    3. 37 Balcha Street, Holland Park where the Applicant was a Building Supervisor for alterations to an existing residence from December 2019 2 January 2021. The evidence from QBCC is that it is unable to verify any of these details from the CN records.
  2. [53]
    These Referee Reports by Dan Djakovic dated 5 March 2021 and 30 April 2021 state a number of conclusions but do not provide sufficient information about particular projects. The Reports do not provide any details of the experience and performance of the Applicant in the building industry in relation to such matters as:
    1. site details for each project the Applicant had been involved in during the 10-year period he was known to the Referee;
    2. the principal contractor or employer for each project;
    3. the scope of works for each project; and
    4. the time spent by the Applicant on each of those projects.

The above Reports are inadequate as they do not supply sufficient information from which a decision can be made in terms of validating the Applicants experience and performance in the relevant building industry class for which is application has been made.

  1. [54]
    Dave Horn, who records his qualifications as AAIQS, has provided a Referee Report dated 17 March 2021. He says he has known and worked with the Applicant for over 10 years and that:[23]

I consider him a very honest and reliable person. He has been a builder for many years constructing houses and commercial buildings. His knowledge and skills in the industry are excellent and very much up to date. I have no hesitation in giving him a reference.

  1. [55]
    A further Referee Report dated 22 April 2021 has been provided by Dave Horne. He says he is a Quantity Surveyor who was worked with the Applicant over nine years estimating office work, rechecking contracts and tender preparation. He says some of the jobs he is familiar with are as follows:[24]
    1. Bradman Street, Acacia Ridge from August 2008 to January 2009;
    2. Springfield Lakes new home from May 2008 to September 2008;
    3. Waratah Avenue Town Houses from 2007 to 2008;
    4. 37 Belcher Street, Holland Park from December 2020 2 January 2021; and

provides documents relating to previous jobs as Preferred Supplier to QBuild & Project Services.

  1. [56]
    There are two significant factors affecting both Referee Reports from David Horn. Firstly, he does not hold a licence in, or equivalent to, a contractor’s BLR license. Accordingly, he is not a suitable or acceptable Referee in terms of the Application by the Applicant. Even if David Horn was an appropriate Referee the information provided does not set out sufficient details of the Applicant’s experience and performance in relation to the nominated projects in the further report dated 22 April 2021. The information provided is general in nature and does not address relevant requirements particularly relating to the scope of works for each of those projects and the extent and nature of the Applicants participation in undertaking in carrying out the required scope of works. The lack of detailed experience and performance are accordingly insufficient and do not allow a proper decision to be made in respect of the Applicants ability to perform building work in the class of license for which he has applied.
  2. [57]
    As previously stated the Applicant has also provided his own Referee Report about himself which is not an appropriate means of validating his own building experience. In any event that Report provides insufficient details and particulars and is unable to operate in terms of an independent Referees Report for the Applicant.
  3. [58]
    The evidence is that the Applicant was requested by QBCC on more than one occasion to provide the details of his experience and performance in the building industry in support of his application for a BLR license. The Applicant was sent relevant documents/forms relating to builder and designer experience and the Referee Report to be completed. The Applicant had a solicitor provide information required in support of his application for a BLR license.[25] That evidence has been considered in the preceding paragraphs. That evidence is general in nature and does not descend to providing the details necessary for a proper assessment to be made as to whether or not the Applicant is capable in the current circumstances to operate as a licensed BLR builder. There is evidence that the Applicant has previously been licensed as a builder for many years since October 2004. However, the entry requirements for that licence have changed since his earlier builder’s licence was issued and he is now required to comply with the current statutory requirements and associated criteria. Sufficient information has to be provided by the Applicant so as to be satisfied that he has suitable current experience which has been validated by Referees. Those details are needed so it can be ascertained that he has the skills, understanding, knowledge and proficiency for undertaking the relevant building activities relating to a BLR licence. There is a lack of detail to explain his undertaking of various services such as supervisory, administrative and management in the coordination and scheduling of work on building sites and associated issues. The evidence provided by the Applicant lacks sufficient detail for that assessment to be undertaken. In the absence of sufficient evidence the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the Applicant satisfies the experience criteria necessary for the grant of a BLR licence..
  4. [59]
    The Tribunal finds that it is not satisfied that the Applicants evidence provided to the Tribunal meets the requirements for the issue of a license required pursuant to s 31(1)(b) of the QBCC Act. The Tribunal is in the circumstances not satisfied that the Applicant has the requisite experience and the application for the issue of a contractors BLR licence should be refused on this ground.

Does the Applicant Satisfy the Fit and Proper Person Criteria?

  1. [60]
    The Applicants entitlement to a contractors BLR licence is dependent upon him being a fit and proper person to hold the licence.[26]
  2. [61]
    In deciding whether a person is fit and proper to hold the licence regard can be had to relevant factors which include:[27]
    1. commercial and other dealings in which that person has been involved and the standard of honesty and integrity demonstrated in those dealing; and
    2. any failure by that person to carry out commercial or statutory obligations and the reasons for the failure.
  3. [62]
    Following the conclusion of the hearing in the Tribunal the Applicant filed Submissions in relation to the “Fit and Proper Person” criteria in section 31(1)(a) of the QBCC Act. In those submissions the Applicant states that QBCC has never raised the issue of the Applicant not being a fit and proper person and previously never brought that issue to his attention. He say consequently he could not address that issue. He further submits that QBCC should have informed him about some adverse information in its possession and must be given an opportunity to “Show Cause” so as to address that adverse information. The Applicant relies upon:
    1. the original decision of QBCC dated 6 April 2021 where his application was refused as he had not provided information of his technical qualifications and work experience; and
    2. the internal review decision dated 1 June 2021 notes that the Applicant did not provide any relevant or supporting documentation in relation to the fit and proper questions.
  4. [63]
    The Applicant refers to Richards & Anor v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[28] where claims relied on by QBCC had not been put by QBCC to the applicants (in those proceedings). The Tribunal decided that those applicants were clearly not afforded natural justice at the outset in the initial decision refusing the claim.[29] The Applicant is claiming in these proceedings a denial of natural justice as the various matters relied upon by the QBCC have not been put to him and he has not had adequate notice to enable a proper response.
  5. [64]
    The response by the Commission is to submit that it is not satisfied that the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a contractors license as:
    1. the Statement of Reasons refers to the issue whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person and then sets out a number of documents relevant to that issue;[30]
    2. the Statement of Miriama Philip states that the Commission is not satisfied the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a trade contractors license for a variety of reasons;[31]
    3. the Statement of Cassie Williams expressed the opinion that the Applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a contractors license.[32]
  6. [65]
    While in these proceedings the focus of the review relates to the decision of the Commission made on 1 June 2021, the evidence demonstrates that the original decision made on 6 April 2021 did not consider, or raise, the issue of whether the Applicant was a fit and proper person, most probably because the decision was based on the Applicant providing insufficient information relating to technical qualifications and experience. In the Commission’s subsequent decision made 1 June 2021 it does refer to the issue of “Fit and Proper Person” and considers in general terms to a number of adverse matters. That decision concludes its consideration with the following statement:[33]

As, I have established that the applicant does not meet the minimum requirements to obtain the BLR licence anyway, as he has not satisfied the qualifications or experience requirements as detailed further in this decision notice, I have not undertaken a full assessment as to whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to determine whether he is entitled to that license.

  1. [66]
    However, these proceedings before the Tribunal require a fresh hearing on the merits and the Tribunal is to produce the correct and preferable decision. The Tribunal has made Directions during the course of preparation for the Hearing to allow all parties to bring forward their evidence in support of their case or in reply to the other parties evidence. The Commission conducted these proceedings on the basis that it was unable to be satisfied that the Applicant was a fit and proper person and produced substantial evidence in respect of its allegations.[34]
  2. [67]
    The Applicant’s submission that QBCC never raised the issue of whether he is a “fit and proper person” is not supported on the evidence in these proceedings. For example:
    1. in the “Licence Application Form” completed by the Applicant on 11 February 2021, that form requires the Applicant to answer a series of questions under the heading of “Fit and Proper”.[35] Amongst the questions made on this topic is whether the Applicant has ever been disciplined by any Tribunal, Board, Commission or Authority in relation to building work. The Applicant answered “Yes”.
    2. In the Application filed in the Tribunal to review the decision of QBCC made on 1 June 2021 the Applicant challenges a statement;[36]
      1. that I am not a person of good standing as I have had a few court cases against QBCC.
    3. In the Applicant’s statement of evidence he says:[37]
      1. in response to the fit and proper allegations, the applicant is the epitome of a fit and proper individual with no criminal record, financial stability and is the caretaker of his family, he also demonstrates the highest integrity and professionalism in his workplace.
  3. [68]
    Following the Applicant’s receipt of the Commissions Statement of Reasons and the Statements of Cassie Williams and Miriama Philip he filed a further statement of evidence responding to those statements and refers to the “Fit and Proper Person” criteria.[38]
  4. [69]
    It is evident from the Applicants own documents filed in these proceedings that from at least the commencement of his Application to review the decision of 1 June 2021 the Applicant has been acutely aware that the criteria as to whether he was a “Fit and Proper Person” was an issue in these proceedings.
  5. [70]
    The Applicant has been aware of those allegations and material upon which the Commission has relied since the filing of the Commission’s Statement of Reasons.[39] This was approximately ten (10) months prior to the hearing of these proceedings. The Applicant would also have also been alerted to this issue by the documents filed in support of the Commissions allegation raising the issue whether the Applicant was a “Fit and Proper Person” on receipt of the statements of Cassie Williams and Miriama Philp.[40] This was nearly three (3) months prior to the hearing in these proceedings.
  6. [71]
    The Applicant filed a statement and exhibits in response to the evidence from Cassie Williams and Miriama Philip.[41] This was approximately a month after the receipt of that evidence and more than a month before the hearing in these proceedings.
  7. [72]
    At the commencement of the hearing in the Tribunal on 28 September 2022 the Tribunal requested the parties to identify the issues that had to be determined in the proceedings. The issues of qualification, experience and fit and proper person were identified. The Applicant was cross-examined during the hearing relating to the issue of whether he was a fit and proper person and a number of documents including the statements of Cassie Williams and Miriama Philip were put to the Applicant. Both those witnesses for QBCC attended the Tribunal hearing and were available for cross examination. No adjournment application was made on behalf of the Applicant in relation to the Fit and Proper Person issue.
  8. [73]
    The Applicant has provided a statement in response to the evidence provided by the Commission relating to the issue whether the Applicant is a Fit and Proper Person.[42] However, that statement to a large extent appears to be an attack or criticism on the Commission’s witnesses and does not in essence attempt to provide evidence that the Applicant is a fit and proper person. Rather, the Applicant’s statement takes issues with those Commission employees and with the approach they take and the alleged failure to take into account some unspecified non particularised facts or circumstances about the Applicant which is said to be on the Commissions files. This statement does not assist the Tribunal in trying to determine whether or not the Applicant satisfies the relevant criteria in s 33(1)(a) of the QBCC Act that he is a fit and proper person to hold a contractors BLR licence.
  9. [74]
    For these reasons, there is insufficient evidence from the Applicant in these proceedings for the Tribunal to determine he is a fit and proper person for the purposes of s 31(1)(a) of the QBCC Act. The Tribunal accepts the evidence  provided by the Commission which includes the evidence in statements of Cassie Williams and Miriama Philip, The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence presented in these proceedings that the Applicant is a fit proper person. The Tribunal finds that that the requirement in s 31(1)(a) of the QBCC Act has not been established and is a ground for refusing the Application for the contractors be BLR licence.

Conclusion.

  1. [75]
    The Tribunal is satisfied and finds that the Applicant has the requisite qualifications required by s 31(1)(b) of the QBCC Act and a finding is made that the Applicant has, on the evidence in these proceedings, satisfied that statutory criteria relating to the technical qualifications.
  2. [76]
    The Tribunal is not satisfied and a finding is made that the Applicant has not established, on the evidence in these proceedings that:
    1. he is a fit and proper person within the meaning of s 31(1)(a) of the QBCC Act; and
    2. he has the experience required by s 31(1)(b) of the QBCC Act.
  3. [77]
    As a result of these findings the Tribunal confirms the decision of the Commission made on 1 June 2021 to decline the licence application for BLR contractor licence. The Tribunal also dismisses the Application to review the decision made on 1 June 2021.

Orders

  1. [78]
    The Tribunal orders that the Decision Notice of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission made on 1 June 2021 to decline the Builder Low Rise (BLR) contractor licence application made by Hajrudin Harry Turcinovic on 6 April 2021 is confirmed.
  2. [79]
    The Application to review a decision filed in the Tribunal on 9 July 2021 by the Applicant is dismissed.

Footnotes

[1]Exhibit 5 at page 333.

[2]Queensland Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) section 10, s 11 & s 17.

[3]Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (QBCC Act) s 86(1)(a) & s 86E.

[4]QBCC Act s 87.

[5]QCAT Act 2009 (Qld) s 18.

[6]QCAT Act s 19.

[7]QCAT Act s 20.

[8]QCAT Act s 24.

[9]Exhibit 8.

[10]The Applicant is qualified in “Carpentry" and needs to only satisfy the requirement for two years’ experience.

[11]QBCC Regulation 2018 (Qld) Part 4, s 5.

[12]QBCC Regulation 2018 (Qld) Part 4, s 2.

[13]Applicants Written submissions filed on 7 October 2022 and 14 October 2022.

[14]Exhibit 5 at page 243.

[15]Exhibit 5 at page 249-250.

[16]Exhibit 5 at page 251–255.

[17]Application to review a decision filed 14 July 2021 at page 5 Part C.

[18]Exhibit 5 at page 317–343.

[19]Exhibit 2 – statement and exhibits dated 17 May 2022.

[20]Exhibit 5 at page 321-325.

[21]Exhibit 5 at page 327.

[22]Exhibit 5 at page 326.

[23]Exhibit 5 at page 343.

[24]Exhibit 5 at page 361–363.

[25]Exhibit 5 at page 300 and 317–343.

[26]QBCC Act s 31(1)(a).

[27]QBCC Act s 31(3).

[28](2019) QCAT 372.

[29]Above note 29 at paragraph 32.

[30]Exhibit 5 at pages 23 -26 of the SOR.

[31]Exhibit 7 at paragraph 29 and 38 (a)(i)(A)

[32]Exhibit 6 at paragraph 45.

[33]Exhibit 5 at page 31.

[34]That evidence is to be found in the references already given in respect of Exhibit 5 at page 23 of SOR at paragraph 80, Exhibits 6 &7.

[35]Exhibit 5 at page 242.

[36]Exhibit 1 at page 4 Part C.

[37]Exhibit 2 at page 3 paragraph 18 in discussion of rectification work (see second last paragraph).

[38]Exhibit 4.

[39]SOR filed on 10 November 2021.

[40]Exhibits 6 & 7 filed on 1 July 2022.

[41]Exhibit 4 filed on 9 August 2022.

[42]Exhibit 4.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Hajrudin Harry Turcinovic v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Hajrudin Harry Turcinovic v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

  • MNC:

    [2024] QCAT 48

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Carrigan

  • Date:

    31 Jan 2024

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
Richards v Queensland Building and Construction Commission (No 2) [2019] QCAT 372
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QCAT 372
Cite 2 - [2019] QCAT 372

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.