Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Vitogiannis v Commissioner for Fair Trading, Department of Customer Service [2020] NSWCATOD 157 Hearing dates: 1 October 2020 Date of orders: 24 December 2020 Decision date: 24 December 2020 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: D Dinnen, Senior Member Decision: (1) The respondent's decision to refuse the applicant's application for a contractor licence, endorsed to show that it is the equivalent of a supervisor certificate, is set aside. (2) In substitution for that decision, the Tribunal decides that the respondent is to issue the applicant with a contractor licence, endorsed to show that it is the equivalent of a supervisor certificate, within 28 days of the date of this decision. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – administrative review – licensing – whether Applicant meets requirements for issue of builders licence - application of Instrument - "wide range of building construction work" - experience requirements met Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Home Building Act 1989 Home Building Regulation 2014 Licensing and Registration (Uniform Procedures) Act 2002 Cases Cited: Briggs v Commissioner for Fair Trading Department of Finance, Services and Innovation [2018] NSWCATOD 175; Carrigan v NSW Fair Trading [2018] NSWCATOD 60; Cooper v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATAD 242; Limberis v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATOD 128 Locking v Department of Finance and Services [2013] NSWADT 239 Ngo v Commissioner for Fair Trading, Department of Finance, Services and Innovation [2019] NSWCATOD 103 Price v Commissioner of Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATOD 108 Price v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2020] NSWCATOD 93 Shoobridge v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2015] NSWCATOD 42 Wall v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATOD 76 Whitehouse v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATOD 108; Texts Cited: None cited Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jim Vitogiannis (Applicant) Commissioner for Fair Trading, Department of Customer Service (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Almassian Lawyers (Applicant) Department of Customer Service (Respondent) File Number(s): 2020/00173635 Publication restriction: Nil Reasons for decision 1. On 18 March 2020 Jim Vitogiannis (the Applicant) applied to the Commissioner for Fair Trading, Department of Customer Service (the Respondent) for an endorsed individual contractor licence in the category of 'general building work' under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) (HBA) (the licence). On 8 April 2020, the Respondent refused the licence application. On 13 May 2020, the Respondent reconsidered the licence application on internal review and affirmed its decision (the Reviewable Decision). Both decisions by the Respondent relied on sections 33C(1)(b)(i) and 33D(1)(b) of the HBA on the basis that the Applicant had not met the relevant experience requirements for the issue of the licence. 2. The question before the Tribunal is whether the Applicant has had sufficient type and length of experience to enable him to do, or to supervise, the work for which the licence is required. Legislative Framework 1. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the Respondent's refusal of the applicant's application for a contractor licence under s 83B(1) of the HBA, s 9 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) (ADR Act) and s 30 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (CAT Act). 2. The Respondent is empowered to grant contractor licences pursuant to s 19 of the HBA, in accordance with Part 2 of the Licensing and Registration (Uniform Procedures) Act 2002 (NSW) (LRUP Act). Section 12 of the LRUP Act sets out the procedure for making an application for a contractor licence, including at s 12(4)(a) that it 'must contain such information as is required by the relevant application form or as is otherwise required by or under the relevant licensing legislation'. 3. Section 21 of the HBA authorises the holder of a contractor licence to contract to do certain residential building work section 28(1) of the HBA authorises the holder of an endorsed contractor licence to do (and to supervise) the same residential building work, or specialist work, as it authorises its holder to contract to do. 4. Section 21(1) of the HBA provides: 21 Authority conferred by contractor licences (1) A contractor licence authorises its holder to contract to do the following— (a) to do any residential building work that is described in the contractor licence when it is issued (being work of a category or categories prescribed by the regulations), (b) to do any specialist work that is described in the contractor licence when it is issued (being work of a category or categories prescribed by the regulations). (c) (Repealed) (emphasis added) 1. Schedule 4 of the Home Building Regulation 2014 (NSW) provides an extended description of the work authorised under various categories of a licence. A licence in the category of general building work would authorise a holder to contract and undertake any work that falls within the definition of 'residential building work'. 2. Schedule 1 of the HBA provides that: "residential building work" means any work involved in, or involved in co-ordinating or supervising any work involved in— (a) the construction of a dwelling, or (b) the making of alterations or additions to a dwelling, or (c) the repairing, renovation, decoration or protective treatment of a dwelling. 1. Section 20(1)(a1) of the HBA provides that an application for a contractor licence must be refused if the Secretary is not satisfied as to the matters required by section 33C of the HBA. Section 33C(1)(b)(i) of the HBA requires that a contractor licence must not be issued unless the Secretary is satisfied that "the applicant, if also applying for an endorsement of the contractor licence to show that it is the equivalent of a supervisor certificate, satisfies the requirements of section 33D for the issue of a supervisor certificate to the applicant". The licence application form completed by the Applicant was for an "Individual Contractor Licence (Q)", which is the endorsed contractor licence. 2. Section 33D(1) of the HBA provides: 33D Additional requirements for obtaining supervisor and tradesperson certificates 1) A supervisor or tradesperson certificate must not be issued unless the Secretary is satisfied that the applicant: (a) has such qualifications or has passed such examinations or practical tests, or both, as the Secretary determines to be necessary to enable the applicant to do, or to supervise, the work for which the certificate is required, and (b) has had experience of such a kind and for such a period as the Secretary considers would enable the applicant to do, or to supervise, the work for which the certificate is required, and (c) is capable of doing or supervising work for which the certificate is required. (emphasis added) The Instrument 1. Pursuant to s33D(1) of the HBA, the Respondent issued the 'Instrument – Qualification requirements for an endorsed contractor licence or supervisor certificate for general building work' on 31 March 2017 (the Instrument). The Instrument relevantly provides that the Commissioner determined that 2. pursuant to s 33D(1)(b) of the Act, the possession of experience of such a kind and for such a period, necessary for an applicant for the issue of a Licence or Certificate to be as follows: (a)(ii)… the possession of experience specified in Column 2 of Table A opposite the relevant matter in Column 1. 1. The necessary experience is identified at Table A as: At least two years' relevant industry Experience in a wide range of building construction work, where the majority of that Experience was obtained within 10 years of the date on which the application is made. 1. The Instrument defines "Experience" as follows: "'Experience' means experience gained by the applicant as: (a) an employee of; or (b) a holder of a supervisor certificate and as a nominated supervisor for the contractor licence held by; or (c) a holder of an endorsed contractor licence contracted to; or (d) a holder of a supervisor certificate in the capacity of a nominated supervisor for a contractor licence held by an individual, partnership or corporation contracted to; or the holder of a contractor licence authorising the holder to do the class of residential building work in which the experience was gained ("the Work"), where the applicant, during the relevant period, was: • supervised and directed in the doing of the Work by the holder of an endorsed contractor licence or supervisor certificate authorising its holder to supervise the Work, and this is verified in the Relevant Application Form; and • received Remuneration in accordance with law for the Work which the applicant carried out; or (e) a holder of a supervisor certificate in the category of full general building work or an endorsed contractor licence in the category of full general building work, held continuously for a minimum period of 2 years within 10 years from the date the application is made." 1. The term "Relevant Application Form" is defined in the Instrument to mean: the relevant application form for the Licence or Certificate that is being applied for, which is published on the NSW Fair Trading website, including the required attachments to that form. 1. The relevant form required the applicant to provide a referee's statement from a person who held a qualified supervisor certificate or individual contractor licence in the category of General Work Builder issued by NSW Fair Trading during the time of the stated experience and who supervised and directed the applicant carrying out the work the subject of the referee statement. 2. The Instrument is not an "instrument" in the sense of being delegated legislation made under an Act, but is rather a policy: Whitehouse v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATOD 108 at [38]; Carrigan v NSW Fair Trading [2018] NSWCATOD 60 at [32]; Limberis v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATOD 128 at [31]. Further, the Instrument is a policy, but not "Government policy" as that term is defined in ss 50 and 64(1) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (ADR Act), and is therefore not binding upon the Tribunal: Whitehouse v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATOD 108 at [39]; Cooper v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATAD 242 at [9]; Briggs v Commissioner for Fair Trading Department of Finance, Services and Innovation [2018] NSWCATOD 175 at [12]; Carrigan v NSW Fair Trading [2018] NSWCATOD 60 at [30]; Limberis v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATOD 128 at [31]. 3. The Tribunal is not required by s 64(4) of the ADR Act to have regard to a policy such as the Instrument, and is permitted to do so only if the policy is not contrary to Government policy and if doing so does not produce an unjust decision: Whitehouse v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATOD 108 at [39]; Carrigan v NSW Fair Trading [2018] NSWCATOD 60 at [32]; Limberis v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATOD 128 at [32]. 4. In Price v Commissioner of Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATOD 108, in considering whether to depart from the Instrument's provisions, the Tribunal stated at [68]: The Home Building Act 1989 is concerned with consumer protection. For the Tribunal to depart from the terms of the Instrument the Tribunal would need assurance that the Applicant had the skills necessary to undertake or supervise the building of a home. 1. In Ngo v Commissioner for Fair Trading, Department of Finance, Services and Innovation [2019] NSWCATOD 103 the Tribunal found that in the circumstances of those proceedings, rigid adherence to the Instrument produced an unjust decision. Applying the principle espoused in Shoobridge v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2015] NSWCATOD 42 at [53] that "whether experience gained on any building site is relevant industry experience is a question of fact to be determined in each case", the Tribunal accepted Mr Ngo's decades of experience on large commercial and residential construction projects in Australia and overseas as satisfying the requirements of a supervisor certificate under the HBA. 2. In Wall v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATOD 76 the Tribunal noted at [33] that the Instrument "may provide some guidance to those applicants wishing to apply to the Commissioner for a licence, but cannot be considered reflective of the eligibility requirements under the Act." Consideration 1. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant had not demonstrated a "wide range of building work" in residential buildings, and had not demonstrated experience of any new structural builds or extensive additions to buildings, instead demonstrating limited experience relevant to remedial and refurbishment works. The Respondent submitted that this type of experience was not sufficient to meet the requirements of the HBA, as defined in the Instrument. 2. The Applicant submitted that the HBA and the Instrument were not as prescriptive as contended for by the Respondent, and that the Applicant's experience across 6 nominated sites demonstrated his ability to do and supervise the works relevant to the licence for which he had applied. 3. The question before the Tribunal is therefore whether the Applicant provided evidence of experience of such a kind and for such a period as would enable him to do, or to supervise, the work for which the licence is required, within section 33D(1)(b) of the HBA. The Applicant's experience 1. The Applicant's qualifications and his satisfaction of the requirements in s 33D(a) were not in issue. He obtained a Diploma of Building and Construction (Building) and Certificate IV in Building and Construction (Building) in August 2016. 2. The Applicant is a director and founder of Inset Group (Australia) Pty Ltd (Inset Group), which has been involved in the building industry since the 1990s. The website of Inset Group states: Inset Group is a Sydney based design, construction and project management company specialising in retail, office and residential fitouts. 1. The Applicant's employment and experience history is entirely attributed by him to the Inset Group, from 8 June 2017 to 12 March 2020 in 'residential building', and from 5 February 1998 to 8 June 2017 in 'commercial fitouts and design'. 2. The Referee's Statement dated 18 March 2020 by Joshua John Ede, Contractor licence 80332S, states that the Applicant was a full-time employee of the Inset Group, Contractor Licence 311147C. It was accompanied by 7 "Applicant's On-site building experience" forms for "additions, alterations to an existing dwelling", which include the following experience entries: 1. 38 Grove Street, Lilyfield 2040 (the Lilyfield site), from 22 January 2018 to 26 March 2018, to "undertake the remedial renovation works to make the premises functional and habitable". The Applicant's roles and responsibilities were stated to be: Residential dwelling, with issues of dilapidated services and surfaces. I supervised him undertake the remedial renovation works to make the premises functional and habitable. We were contracted to undertake the remedial works associated with subsided and blocked storm water, sewerage, concrete surfaces and rising damp. Works involvement and responsibility: 1. Investigate blocked drainage services, undertake a video camera inspection of the existing storm water and sewerage drainage system. Check all potable water, natural gas pipework and connections. Scan existing reinforced floor slabs and footings to determine structural consistency and have this evaluated via Structural Engineer. Review existing storm water and sewerage infrastructure with Civil Engineer. Provide report and provide quotation for works as a lump sum contract. Provide contract works and perform works. Actual construction works undertaken: Termination/isolation of services – electrical, hydraulic, gas and drainage. Scanning and marking of services. Cutting and demolition of floor slabs, walls and areas where services were required to be exposed. Removal or identified and now redundant services. Rough in all new services for electrical, hydraulic, natural gas and drainage – storm water and sewerage. Supply and installation of new detention pit for stormwater. Termite and insect protection. Reinstatement of reinforced concrete and structures where affected. Water proofing and tanking. New electrical, data, communications and plumbing services. Connect supplied prime cost items to reinstated new services. Rubbish removal and cleaning of site, ready for hand over. Complete works up to lock up stage. 1. The Lilyfield site, 3 April 2018 to 22 May 2018, to "residential dwelling, internal renovation of studio level (ground floor) area". The Applicant's roles and responsibilities were stated to be: I supervised him undertaking the internal finishing of areas, primarily with the Ground Floor 'studio' space and sub floor area under the main Ground floor. Works undertaken were as follows: Interior linings and finishes, making good where required and new in affected areas. Replacement of framework and glazing to existing openings. Renovation of bathroom and kitchen. Prime cost items supplied by Owner. Supply and installation of alarm. Rubbish removal and cleaning of site, ready for hand over. Electrical, Plumbing, Data and Security works. 1. The Lilyfield site, 6 June 2018 to 4 July 2018, to "external remediation and reconstruction of retaining walls". The Applicant's roles and responsibilities were stated to be: The works involved the removal and reinstatement of retaining wall and planter boxes located at the rear side of the property, directly behind the r4ear of the existing dwelling. I supervised him with excavation of retained ground surface, to facilitate the safe removal of the existing masonry and reinforced concrete retaining wall and planter boxes. Demolition of the existing retaining walls and planter boxes. Sorting of waste, retaining all reusable material and discarding redundant material via skip rubbish collection, taken to Recycling Centre. Evaluation by Structural and Civil Engineer as to the positioning and make up of the new replacement structures. Construction of new reinforced structural retaining walls and planter boxes. Irrigation and storm water connections. Water proofing ground surface back filling and levelling. Reinforced concrete slab and associated pathways with steps. Rendering and surface treatment. Develop drawing and specification package for council submission of Development Application, including liaising and managing process of Engineering Consultants, Town Planner and Building Certifier. Representation to Council to apply for change in classification of Building from Class 1 to Class 2. 1. The Lilyfield site, 25 July 2018 to 22 August 2018, for "additions, alterations to an existing dwelling". The Applicant's roles and responsibilities were stated to be: Removal of existing roof sheeting, make good and reinstate. Also reinstate air conditioning after roof cladding installation. This scope involved the removal of existing metal clad roofing to the existing skillion roof, make good of box gutter and down pipe and associated works. Actual scope undertaken and supervised included Removal of existing sheet metal clip lock roofing and fibre glass insulation. Removal of associated flashing, box gutter and down pipe. Make good existing timber frame structure, ready for new roofing. Supply and install new mesh support for insulation blanket and supply and install new R2 rated roof insulation. Supply and install new trim deck roof panels with associated flashing, capping, gutter, rain water head and gutter. Connect to newly reinstated storm water drainage. Reinstate air conditioning plant onto roof. Reinstate tv aerial onto roof. 1. 27 Cromwell Street, Ashfield 2131 (the Ashfield site), from 27 August 2018 to 28 September 2018, for "renovation and extension works, inclusive of sub trades". The Applicant's roles and responsibilities were stated to be: Residential dwelling, external upgrade and surfacing, internal alterations to Bathroom and outdoor Toilet. Supervised him prepare the external areas of masonry walls, make good flashings and gutters, reseal and waterproof areas, arrange for painting and resurfacing of existing concrete slabs. Installation of ground storm water reticulation, internal upgrade of Laundry and upgrade of existing outbuilding. 1. 8 Emperor Place, Kenthurst 2156 (the Kenthurst site), from 2 October 2018 [1] to 31 January 2019, for "renovation and extension works, inclusive of sub trades". The Applicant's roles and responsibilities were stated to be: Contracted as the main sub contractor by the lead Builder/Developer to undertake the renovation and alteration works at this existing residential premises. The property is a 5 acre block, with an existing single level brick veneer dwelling, attached garages for 4 cars. Supervision of work was to undertake the internal renovation works and construct a new detached outbuilding to be used for storage. Works undertaken: demolition of walls and structure, to open internal areas, Excavation of external ground areas. Installation of new storm water catchment, retention pits and irrigation lines. Renovation to existing swimming pool finishes. Demolition of existing kitchen and bathroom areas. Alterations to electrical infrastructure, to expand the existing computerised control wiring. Supply and install new kitchen, bathrooms, bedroom and lounge area joinery. Alterations to existing aluminium framed doors. Construction of out building in metal frame and colour bond cladding. Alterations and installation of air conditioning plant and equipment. Plastering and painting. Waterproofing floor and wall tiling. Landscaping. 1. 20 St Albans Street, Abbotsford 2046 (the Abbotsford site), from 5 February 2019 to 11 May 2019, for "residential dwelling, internal renovation and extension works". The Applicant's roles and responsibilities were stated to be: Contracted to undertake internal renovation, including floor and wall finishes, replacement of joinery to Study room, inclusive of sub trades – electrical, plastering, painting. Actual scope undertaken: Supervised Jim in the following: Removal of existing joinery, services, floor and wall finishes. Rough in new services. Manufacture of custom new joinery, installation. Site carpentry and joinery fixout. Plastering. Electrical services. Painting. 1. The Lilyfield site, 13 May 2019 to 9 August 2019, for "internal renovation". The Applicant's roles and responsibilities were stated to be: Alterations to existing reinforced concrete slab and balcony, modifications two structural walls and openings. Demolition of existing stair and associated balustrades. I supervised him undertake works to prepare and construct all new works, manage side trades associated with the works. He installed a new prefabricated steel structure stair and timber treads, managed the installation of aluminium balustrades and associated handrails. Constructed new surface finishes to existing concrete slab and balcony. 1. The Abbotsford site, from 12 August 2019 to 16 September 2019 for "residential dwelling, internal renovation and extension works". The Applicant's roles and responsibilities were stated to be: Contracted to undertake internal renovation, including floor and wall finishes, replacement of joinery to Study room, inclusive of sub trades – electrical, plastering, painting. I supervised him undertake the removal of existing joinery, services, floor and wall finishes. Rough in new services and managed appropriate services trades. He arranged for custom joinery production, delivery to site, and installed the joinery plus all site carpentry. Undertook and managed the Plastering trades, Electrical and Painting. 1. The Lilyfield site, from 17 September 2019 to 15 October 2019 for "internal renovation of Ground and 1st floor". The Applicant's roles and responsibilities were stated to be: Demolition of existing interior areas. Discard all waste to waste recycling centre. Preparation of surfaces and waterproofing. Refinishing walls and floors. Installation of supplied Prime Cost items (supplied by client). Connection of plumbing and electrical services. Painting. Installation of doors and frames. Re glazing of existing windows and upgrade locking mechanisms. 1. The Lilyfield site, from 21 October 2019 to 11 November 2019 for "external and internal renovation including remedial works". The Applicant's roles and responsibilities were stated to be: Renovation of kitchen areas. I supervised him undertake the demolition of existing cabinetry, discarding of all waste to recycling centre, preparation of all areas and arrange for waterproofing, refinish walls, installation of all supplied prime cost items and joinery, arrange connection of plumbing and electrical trades. 1. 1 Vanny Place, Maroubra 2035 (the Maroubra site), from 12 November 2019 to 23 December 2019, for "residential dwelling, external and internal renovation including remedial works". The Applicant's roles and responsibilities were stated to be: Complete renovation of existing 2 storey dwelling with associated sub floor double garage and sub floor storage areas. Inspection of existing premises to determine where water was coming into the interior of the dwelling, primarily from the top floor reinforced concrete and parapet roof. Inspect to identify source of water leaking in the Bathroom, Bedroom and Laundry of the 1st floor and Bedroom plus Bathroom of the Ground Floor. Identify leak to the Basement area. Arrange slab scanning of the roof slab and camera surveillance of the plumbing services. Identified source of leaks, Undertook was reproofing or all roof slab and parapet walls. Removed all cracked render surfaces from walls, removed all spawned concrete and prepared all areas. Applied new acrylic render to affected wall areas. Prepared all external floor areas for new sealer and applied new sealer. Prepared and applied new textured coat paint finish to all of the exterior. Removed and replaced damaged plaster in internal areas. Removed redundant services and replaced with new – plumbing and electrical. Make good and replace reinforced concrete stair. Replace damaged Kitchen and Bathroom joinery and appliances. 1. The Lilyfield site, from 6 January 2020 to 31 January 2020 for "residential dwelling, external works - landscaping". The Applicant's roles and responsibilities were stated to be: External landscaping and resurfacing, works included: New planter and retaining walls, constructed out of reinforced concrete. New reinforced concrete pathways and stairs, water proofing. Irrigation and connection of agricultural drains to storm water drainage system. Soil backfilling. Access equipment in preparation for works – scaffolds, ladders and abseil equipment. Planting and mulch (plants supplied by owner). Surface and refinishing of new pathways and steps. 1. 14 Etterick Street, Ashbury 2193 (the Ashbury site), from 3 February 2020 to 12 March 2020 for "residential dwelling, outbuilding". The Applicant's roles and responsibilities were stated to be: Alteration to existing double garage, removal of existing roof, demolition of dilapidated masonry walls, concrete strip footing and reinforced concrete slab. Make good of existing plumbing and electrical services. Reinstate and make good storm water catchment and reconnect. External landscaping, resurfacing of paths and driveway, replacement of existing gates and part fencing. Works undertaken: Removal of roof structure. Pest extermination and preparation/make good of contaminated surfaces. Removal of existing dilapidated masonry walls, doors, windows, strip footing, and part reinforced concrete slab. New infill reinforced strip footing, masonry wall and reinforced concrete slab. Provision and upgrade of storm water lines and connection of roof drainage to storm water lines. Reconnection of drainage and sewerage plumbing plus electrical works. Works continuing to be undertaken. Landscape upgrade. Pergola. Replacement of gates and part fencing. 1. These six sites encompassing fourteen separate building projects between 21 January 2018 and 12 March 2020, and the Applicant's role at each site, were addressed further by the Applicant in extensive written submissions and in oral evidence at the hearing, with reference to 44 pages of photos from the building projects: Project Nature of Work and Reference to photos Stage 1 works i. Demolition and Excavation (page 1, photos 1 to 13) 38 Grove Street, Lilyfield NSW (Lilyfield Site) ii. Steel Fixing (page 5, photo 1) iii. Concreting (page 5, photos 1 to 3) iv. Waterproofing (page 4, photos 1 to 6) Stage 2 works i. Wall and ceiling structural construction (page 6, photos 1 to 4) Stage 3 works i. Excavation; ii. Footings; iii. Formwork; iv. Steel Fixing; v. Reinforced concrete footings; vi. Retaining wall formwork; vii. Steel fixing to retaining wall; viii. Concreting; ix. Pathway to stairs and retaining wall – reinforced concrete in formed structure; x. Masonry wall, in brick and block construction. Page 7 (photos 4 to 7) and Page 8 (photos 1 to 14) Stage 4 works: Roof Structure including: i. Demolition ii. Prop supporting iii. New timber framework and beam structures, with new timber framed wall/posts; iv. New sheet roofing, associated flashing with capping and roof drainage. Page 11 (photos 3 & 4), and page 12 (photos 1 to 16) Stage 5 works: i. Demolition of reinforced concrete stairs and part reinforced concrete suspended floor slab; ii. Re-stabilise reinforced concrete slab and preparation of edge to ensure no future concrete cancer; iii. Construction of new structural steel spine staircase, with open riser and structural timber treads Page 13 (photos 2 to 4, 11, 14 & 16) Stage 6 works i. Installation of new structural steel beams and suspended ceiling structure Page 14 (photos 2 to 4, 11, 14 & 16) Page 15 and 16: completed works Stage 7 works i. Removal of existing reinforced concrete floor new waterproofing Page 17 (photos 6 to 9) Stage 8 works External Ground works including: i. Driveway; ii. Walkways; iii. Stairs; iv. Retaining walls; v. Planter boxes; vi. Front fencing Page 19 (photos 1 to 12), page 20 (photos 1 to 6), page 21 (photos 1 to 12), page 22 (photos 1 to 10) i. Internal and external demolition; 27 Cromwell Street, Ashfield (Ashfield site) ii. New replacement rear deck structure, incorporating suspended post and beam structure with timber decking, balustrade and hand rail. Timber roof structure with polycarbonate roof sheeting and associate roof plumbing Page 23 (photo 1 to 15), page 24 (photo 8 to 10) i. Parapet and wall structure to shed/outbuilding Page 26 (photo 1 to 6) ii. Exterior reinforced concrete slabs with asphalt and paver finish 8 Emperor Place, Kenthurst (Kenthurst site) Page 26 (photo 4 and 5) iii. Water feature pond construction Page 29 (photo 4) iv. Internal structure alterations - Internal walls, ceilings removed, rebraced to take configuration Page 27 (photos 6 to 9), page 28 (photo 2, 4, 6, 7 & 8) 20 St Albans Street, Abbottsford (Abbotsford site) i. Renovations and alterations to dwelling Page 34 (photos 1 – 6) page 35 (photos 8 to 12) 1 Vanny Place, Maroubra (Maroubra site) i. External and internal renovation. Works were focused on making good existing structure that was severely affected by concrete spalling, failing waterproofing, external façade failure. Page 38 (photos 1 to 17) Alterations and additions to existing garage. Works included: i. Demolition and excavation ii. Steel fixing and reinforced concrete 14 Ettrick Street, Ashbury (Ashbury site) iii. Bricklaying and steel beams/lintels iv. Timber roof structure with steel beam installation; v. Roof cladding in corrugated iron, with associated roof plumbing Page 41 (photos 1 to 11), page 42 (photos 1 to 10), page 43 (1 to 16), page 44 (1 to 14) 1. Eight of the fourteen building projects were at the one site at Lilyfield, and two were at the one site at Abbotsford. Relevant to the Respondent's submissions, it was noted that only the Kenthurst site, Ashbury site and the 5th, 6th and 8th of the building projects at the Lilyfield site were subject to a Development Approval (DA) or Complying Development Certificate (CDC). 2. Additionally, in a Statement dated 10 August 2020 the Applicant provided details of his experience in residential and retail/commercial/industrial works prior to his supervision by Mr Ede, being "highlighted projects and experience that I have been personally responsible and have undertaken in my career to date that all have a high emphasis on structural construction". There were 7 residential works and 15 retail/commercial/industrial works identified by address. The Applicant identified his role in the residential works as including site and project management, oversight and supervision, submissions to council, selection and implementation of trade works in both complete and partial demolitions. The Applicant identified his role in the retail/commercial/industrial works as including redevelopment, renovation and remodelling of retail and commercial tenancies, including boutique and luxury clients, heritage buildings involving heritage submissions, and project management including as main contractor. 3. The Applicant provided reference letters from contractors to the building projects verifying the scope of works undertaken by him: 1. Luke Tsougranis of Luke Tsougranis & Associates, Consulting Structural and Civil Engineers, provided a verification statement dated 10 April 2020 in relation to the Lilyfield site, confirming that "the works undertaken by you for all structurally related matters were done so to our satisfaction", and that structural certification was provided for "all completed works that you undertook". 2. Damien of Harbourside Carpentry & Construction, Licence #147341C provided a statement dated 14 April 2020 in relation to the Lilyfield site, for which his company supplied site installation labour, confirming that the Applicant "was the site managed and was a hands on operator, working with our team to undertake and install all works". 3. Jason Lagden of Waterproofing Specialists, Licence #300093C, provided a letter dated 16 April 2020 in relation to the Lilyfield and Maroubra sites, confirming that the Applicant was the site supervisor and that he "witnessed Jim being both hands on with an array of building works, related to structure, services and finishes", and "endorse[d] his capacity and ability". 4. Sebastian Bonaccorso of Boncor Constructions Pty Ltd, Licence #106651c provided a letter dated 21 April 2020 in relation to the Kenthurst site, at which his company was the Principal Builder, subcontracting Inset Group with the Applicant as the principal contact. Mr Bonaccorso stated that the Applicant "is a very experienced and well structured individual. He is able to assess, undertake and delegate a variety of Building works and delivers an excellent result… We have no hesitation in confirming Jim's ability as a suitable and experienced person that can undertake any type of residential building work". 5. Steve Dayoub of Maxisteel Fabrication (Aust) Pty Ltd, Licence #207172C provided a letter dated 14 April 2020 in relation to the Lilyfield and Ashbury sites. Mr Dayoub stated that "Jim has been the main contact for us… On site, Jim was responsible for the setting out and construction of new structural steel staircase at 38 Grove Street, Lilyfield and the structural supports for both projects to house balustrade, handrails and fencing. Whilst on site, Jim was overseen by Joshua Ede and both men instructed and assisted with the placement and installation works. It is a pleasure to deal with Jim and he has very detailed knowledge of all construction methods and both BCA and Australian Standards when it relates to our work". 6. Seb Bzishvili of Chromatech Painting Solutions, Licence #216115C provided a letter dated 18 April 2020 in relation to the Lilyfield, Ashfield, Maroubra and Ashbury sites, at which "we have been instructed and supervised by Jim Vitogiannis. He has been responsible for all site day to day activities, ensuring that our Painters follow correct OH&S procedures, providing all necessary access equipment and coordinating other building trades. I have witnessed Jim undertake a variety of building and construction works on all of the projects that we have been involved with..." 7. George Gioulis of GLG Electrical Installations, Licence #EC41215 provided a letter dated 27 April 2020 in relation to "a number of project sites" at which they had undertaken residential electrical works. Mr Gioulis stated "Jim is a very experienced person, with good knowledge of all trades and construction methods. He has been fully involved not only with the electrical works that we have undertaken, but in the process of doing our works, I have witnessed him physically undertake construction of the following… Jim has the ability to be both hands on the job and manage trade and materials so that the site works flow and projects are dealt with within the required sequence and schedule… I would not hesitate to endorse Jim's experience and knowledge in terms of the residential construction that I have witnessed him undertaking." 8. Shu Jiang Ling of SJ Trading International Company Pty Ltd, Licence #247597C provided a letter dated 4 May 2020 in relation to the tiling works his company had undertaken at the Lilyfield, Ashbury, Kenthurst and Abbotsford sites, confirming that the Applicant had been their principal contact on site, and had overseen and instructed tilers on site. 1. The Applicant provided an additional letter from his referee, Mr Ede, dated 4 May 2020. Mr Ede's letter clarified the following: In all of the project works and experience that l have supervised Jim Vitogiannis over the last 24 months, there has been a high level of structural construction. … Written and listed within the application forms were details on the projects and experience that Jim has gained under my supervision. lt is stated in this experience that Jim has undertaken site structural and construction works. Jim has been involved in a variety and multitude of site construction works, which include structural and cosmetic elements. 1. The Applicant gave oral evidence and was cross examined. There were no other witnesses called. The Applicant's evidence at hearing supplemented the written descriptions of the works undertaken by him at each of the six nominated sites, with reference to detailed pictures of the building works at each site. The Applicant was shown to be both undertaking the work himself, and supervising or overseeing trades, including those individuals who had provided him with references. He told the Tribunal that he relied on tradespeople's' expertise. He gave specific evidence with reference to the structural works undertaken at each of the six nominated sites. 2. The Respondent did not materially dispute the Applicant's personal evidence, either written or oral, but rather focussed on the effect of that evidence with reference to the Instrument, or the weight it should be given by the Tribunal. The Respondent did not dispute the evidence in Mr Ede's Referee's Statement in relation to the experience obtained by the Applicant at the six nominated sites from 22 January 2018 to 12 March 2020. 3. The Respondent sought to diminish the value of the references referred to at [31] on the basis that they had not provided a formal "Referee's Statement" as Mr Ede had, and each individual referee did not hold an endorsed contractor licence or qualified supervisor certificate in residential building work and therefore could not confirm the Applicant's experience. I agree that they cannot verify the Applicant's experience as a whole in accordance with the Instrument, but disagree that their references do not assist with the assessment of the Applicant's competency for the licence. The Instrument requires a formal Referee's Statement, which was provided by Mr Ede. Each of the additional references (as identified at [31]) individually supports various parts of the Applicant's evidence of his experience, which is useful to the Tribunal in verifying the Applicant's experience at the relevant sites as outlined in Mr Ede's Referee Statement and for the periods claimed by the Applicant. The additional references are also useful in supporting the Applicant's evidence and Mr Ede's endorsement that the Applicant is sufficiently knowledgeable and capable to supervise the wide range of trades involved in building and construction of residential dwellings. 4. The Applicant's oral and written evidence of his roles and responsibilities at each of the 6 nominated sites was supported by photographic evidence and the Referee's Statement dated 18 March 2020. They were also supported by the additional references from Mr Ede and the other tradespersons he worked with at those sites as identified above at [31]. I accept the Applicant's evidence and give it significant weight. I also accept Mr Ede's Referee's Statement and additional reference provided, and give it significant weight. In that context I consider the additional references to be corroborative of the Applicant's evidence and afford them reasonable weight. The Respondent's submissions 1. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant's licence refusal was justified on the following bases: The issuing of a licence for general building work communicates to the public that the holder is able to supervise all trades required to complete any type of dwelling in compliance with relevant standards, and professionally. The overall experience demonstrated by the Applicant is limited to remedial, renovation and refurbishment work to existing dwellings. There was no, or very little, demonstration of the Applicant supervising or doing medium to large construction projects, for example constructing new dwellings or major extension work. Overall, the verified scope of work for all sites is primarily remedial, renovation and refurbishment work on existing dwellings. The Respondent submits that such experience, although valuable, is insufficient to warrant the issuing of a contractor licence in the specialised category of building. 1. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant's experience at the six nominated sites was deficient because the verified scope of work for all sites was primarily remedial, renovation and refurbishment work on existing dwellings, and this was not enough where a "wide range of building construction work" was required. The Respondent submitted that the "wide range of building construction work" required in the Instrument had to include the construction of new buildings, not just alterations to preexisting buildings, and had to include significant structural works. 2. The scale of the construction work undertaken was also submitted to be deficient. The Respondent relied on aerial images of the sites, whether the site was subject to a DA/CDC and whether Home Warranty Insurance was required to support submissions that the works relied on by the Applicant were not of a large enough scale and therefore not a "wide range of building construction work". 3. The Respondent submitted that an overlap in the experience dates relied on by the Applicant indicated that the Applicant had not fulfilled the "minimum two years" criteria. The period claimed for three of the eight Lilyfield contracts overlapped with the period claimed at the Kenthurst site, for 59 days' experience. 4. In relation to each of the sites individually, the Respondent submitted the following: 1. The Lilyfield site works were mainly non-structural, and a DA/CDC was only relevant for three of the eight contracts, being the work related to the new steel stair structure, renovation to ground and first floors, and external landscaping works. Aerial imaging confirmed no major structural changes to the dwelling at the site. 2. Most of the works at the Ashfield site were non-structural, limited to internal renovation to an existing dwelling. Aerial imaging of the Ashfield site throughout the period claimed confirms that no major structural changes were made to the dwelling at the site. 3. Work at the Kenthurst site, including construction of an outbuilding and a roof structure over the rear balcony were not visible in aerial imaging. 4. Works at the Abbotsford site were limited to internal renovation works requiring no major changes to the structure of the dwelling. 5. At the Maroubra site, aerial images for the period support the Applicant's claim that remedial work was undertaken to the roof of the dwelling. However the work claimed at the Maroubra site was remedial work requiring no structural construction work. 6. A search of the DA for the Ashbury site confirms that it was issued in 2018 for alterations to the garage. The Respondent submitted that the work carried out at the Ashbury site during the claimed period was limited to remedial and refurbishment works. 1. The Respondent submitted that the additional references did not confirm the Applicant's experience on the required referee statement forms, because (other than Mr Ede) none of them held an endorsed contractor licence or qualified supervisor certificate in residential building work, and that they each did not have the necessary knowledge to establish the competency and experience of the Applicant. Their consideration should be limited to verifying the experience at the relevant sites as outlined in Mr Ede's Referee Statement and for the periods claimed by the Applicant. 2. The Respondent referred to Locking v Department of Finance and Services [2013] NSWADT 239 (Locking) where the Tribunal stated: "…[E]xperience in carpentry and joinery work is not the equivalent of "a wide range of building construction work" as required by the Instrument. Carpentry and joinery work is a sub-category of building. It is only one aspect of the work required to be done in order to complete the construction of a residential dwelling… A building contractor has the overall responsibility for a site and must be able to supervise all of the trades required to complete any type of dwelling. Additionally, a builder must be able to determine that all trades have complied with all standards and requirements. There are many gaps in [the Applicant's] trade supervisory experience and therefore his understanding of certain trades. Those trades include flooring, bricklaying, stonemasonry, wet plastering, painting, decorating, general concreting, tiling, demolishing, fencing, glazing and waterproofing. A building contractor is also able to contract with the public, and must therefore be able to negotiate a contract, quote for a project and co-ordinate the trades to be able to complete the project on time and within budget. He or she must also be able to negotiate and discuss the jobs with council and private certifiers to ensure that the work is passed fit when appropriate." 1. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant had demonstrated ability to undertake non-structural internal renovation and remedial works, with some limited structural components, but although renovation and remedial works formed part of the definition of 'residential building work' they do not of themselves constitute the required 'wide range of building construction work' prescribed by the Instrument. "Wide range of building construction work" 1. The Instrument requires the Applicant to have undertaken a "wide range of building construction work". The Respondent's submissions are to the effect that a "wide range" should include new buildings and structural works, or at the very least, extensions or renovations to current dwellings which are significant enough to warrant development approvals and/or home warranty insurance, and demonstrably change the aerial view of a dwelling. I disagree. The requirements in the Instrument are deliberately broad, and I agree with the Applicant's submission that the Instrument does not specify what weighting and value to be ascribed to "structural experience" as opposed to refurbishment or renovation work for residential dwellings, or how that would be calculated. I also agree with the Applicant's submission that the process and methodology of construction may be more complex for an existing building, renovation or refurbishment than in simply erecting a new building. 2. Aerial photographs of a site, as relied on by the Respondent, are not sufficient evidence that the scope or scale of works undertaken at that site was minimal, as extensive works – structural and non-structural – can be undertaken within the present footprint of any dwelling with minimal observable alteration by aerial photography. I agree with the Respondent that the obtaining of Home Warranty Insurance and/or Development Approvals are good indicators of the scale of the works being undertaken, but they are not the only indicator. The Lilyfield site provides a good example of why the Respondent's evidence and submissions are not persuasive. Five of the eight separate projects at the Lilyfield site did not require a DA because initially the works were limited in scope to remedial and general upgrades, and whilst there were slight additions to the envelope of the property, including realignment of balcony stairs, the aerial footprint remained largely the same. The breadth and scopes of work increased until a DA was sought after about halfway through the eight projects. Whilst individually each of the eight projects at Lilyfield may be considered minor, limited remedial or renovation works, when viewed cumulatively the building construction works undertaken by the Applicant at the Lilyfield site would constitute a "wide range". 3. The scale of the works is only one measurement which may be relevant to the "wide range" referred to in the Instrument. Other measurements could include the number and variety of different trades involved, the materials used, the construction methods employed. More importantly, as referred to in Locking, is the Applicant's ability and knowledge with reference to the "wide range of building construction work": A building contractor has the overall responsibility for a site and must be able to supervise all of the trades required to complete any type of dwelling. Additionally, a builder must be able to determine that all trades have complied with all standards and requirements. Conclusions 1. I accept the Respondent's submission that some structural experience is a useful component in determining whether an individual's experience constitutes a "wide range of building construction work". On my review of the Applicant's evidence I consider that the Applicant has demonstrated experience in making structural changes at each of the sites. The Applicant has also provided undisputed evidence from a licenced referee, Mr Ede, that the works undertaken by the Applicant in the two year period involved "a high level of structural construction", which I have given significant weight. Further, the Applicant's structural experience at the Lilyfield site was approved by the site's structural engineer, which supports the other evidence of the Applicant's ability to do and supervise structural works for residential dwellings. 2. The Respondent disputed that the Applicant had undertaken the requisite two years of experience with reference to a calculation of individual days worked from Mr Ede's Referee's Statement. However Mr Ede's written evidence was to the effect that the Applicant had been supervised by him over a continuous 24 month period and for each of the building sites listed in his Referee's Statement. I accept Mr Ede's evidence that the Applicant had been supervised by him over a continuous 24 month period. 3. The Respondent submitted that as the Applicant had not provided Referee Statements for the additional residential and commercial experience prior to 22 January 2018 as referred to in his Statement of 10 August 2020, it should not be considered by the Tribunal because the experience has not been verified by an appropriately qualified and experienced person. This principle was expressed in Limberis as "an applicant alone cannot verify their own experience" and this was reinforced in the recent decision of Price v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2020] NSWCATOD 93 at [55]. I agree with that submission and accordingly have not taken into account the 7 additional residential projects and 15 commercial projects referred to by the Applicant in my consideration of whether the Applicant has the relevant type of experience in a "wide range of building construction". 4. I have given reasonable weight to the additional references provided for the Applicant in the context of each of their respective experience at the six nominated sites, and their individual trade expertise. Taking into consideration those references together with Mr Ede's evidence, I conclude that the Applicant is able to manage and supervise the wide range of trades involved in residential building works. 5. Having reviewed the photographs of the building projects at each of the six nominated sites in conjunction with the Applicant's written and oral evidence, it is clear that the Applicant has undertaken a wide range of building construction work in the past two years. I accept Mr Ede's endorsement of the Applicant's suitability to hold the relevant licence, having undertaken the two years' experience under his supervision in a wide range of building construction work. With the passage in Locking referred to above at [44] in mind, there is abundant evidence before the Tribunal to satisfy me that the Applicant has the requisite skill, experience and ability for the relevant licence. Whilst the requirements expressed in the Instrument are only a guideline, there is no need to depart from them in determining these proceedings. 6. I am also satisfied that the applicant's qualifications are such as enable him to do, or to supervise, the work for which the endorsed contractor licence is required. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the applicant has the qualifications required by s 33D(1)(a), when read with s 33C(1)(b). I find that the evidence establishes that the applicant has had experience of such a kind and for such a period as it considers would enable the applicant to do, or to supervise, the work for which the endorsed contractor licence is required, within s 33D(1)(b). I am also satisfied, from the evidence, that the applicant is capable of doing or supervising work for which the certificate is required within s 33D(1)(c), and the Respondent did not make any submissions to the contrary. 7. Accordingly, the correct and preferable decision is for the Tribunal to set aside the Respondent's decision to refuse the Applicant's application for an endorsed contractor licence under the HBA, and to grant the licence. Orders 1. The respondent's decision to refuse the applicant's application for a contractor licence, endorsed to show that it is the equivalent of a supervisor certificate, is set aside. 2. In substitution for that decision, the Tribunal decides that the respondent is to issue the applicant with a contractor licence, endorsed to show that it is the equivalent of a supervisor certificate, within 28 days of the date of this decision. ********** Endnote 1. Typographic error in original form read "02/10/2019" I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 24 December 2020