Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Paul Voutef v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2023] NSWCATOD 79 Hearing dates: 15 May 2023 Date of orders: 13 June 2023 Decision date: 13 June 2023 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: J Levine, Senior Member Decision: (1) The Decision under review is set aside. (2) A contractor licence in the categories of Wall & Floor Tiler and Waterproofing Technician is to be issued to the Applicant under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW). Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – Whether Applicant is disqualified under sections 20(1)(c) and 33A of Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) – Whether offence involving honesty should be ignored under section 33A(2) of Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) because of the time that has passed – Whether Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold contractor licence under sections 20(1)(a) and 20(1A) of Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) Home Building Regulation 2014 (NSW) Cases Cited: Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 Bek v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2004] NSWADT 149 Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577 Eleter v Director-General, Department of Fair Trading [2002] NSWADT 138 Farah v Director General, Department of Finance and Services [2014] NSWCATAP23 Farah v Director General, Department of Finance and Services [2013] NSWADT 198 Gambino v Commissioner for NSW Fair Trading [2014] NSWCATOD 135 Grenfell v Director General Department of Finance and Services [2013] NSWADT 57 Hadroj v Director General, Department of Fair Trading [2002] NSWADT 95 Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v The State of New South Wales (1955) 93 CLR 127 Hunt v Director General, Department of Services Technology and Administration [2010] NSWADT 186 Livaja v Cmr for Fair Trading, Dept of Finance, Services and Innovation [2020] NSWCATOD 17 Luk v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2019] NSWCATAP Appeal 23 Nizhnikov v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2006] NSWADT 284 Parvin v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2005] NSWADT 34 Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board (1979) SASR 70 AT 76 Song v Commissioner for Fair Trading, NSW Office of Fair Trading [2006] NSWADT 218 Yelland v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2005] NSWADT 293 Texts Cited: None Category: Principal judgment Parties: Paul Voutef (Applicant) Commissioner for Fair Trading (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Paul Voutef (Self-Represented) Customer Service NSW (Respondent) File Number(s): 2023/00002108 Publication restriction: Nil REASONS FOR DECISION Introduction 1. This case concerns review of a decision by a delegate of the Commissioner for Fair Trading of NSW ("Respondent") to refuse the application of Mr Paul Voutef ("Applicant") for a contractor licence in the categories of Wall & Floor Tiler and Waterproofing Technician under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) ("HBA"). 2. On 4 August 2022, the Applicant submitted an application for a contractor licence in the categories of Wall & Floor Tiler and Waterproofing Technician. 3. On 24 October 2022, a delegate of the Respondent refused the application, citing sections 20(1)(a), 20(1A) and 33A(1)(a) of the HBA. The reasons provided for the refusal included that the Respondent was not satisfied that Mr Voutef was a "fit and proper person" to hold a contractor's licence as he had convictions for multiple offences that displayed a "repeating pattern that is undesirable for a person to be associated with the residential building industry" and insufficient time had passed since the last offence to demonstrate that he had made "successful progress". The delegate of the Respondent also considered criminal history dating back to 1993 and stated that the Applicant had not provided any documentary evidence to show his claimed rehabilitation. 4. On 17 November 2022, the Applicant requested an internal review of the decision to refuse the licence pursuant to section 53 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) ("ADR Act"). He provided letters of support and documentation showing steps he had taken to become a productive member of the community. He stated he was prepared to go on "some sort of probation" and was "willing to do anything to be able to get back to work in the industry" in which he had trained and about which he was passionate. On 8 December 2022, another delegate of the Respondent determined under section 53(5)(a) of the ADR Act to affirm the original decision ("Decision"), recording his conclusion that insufficient time had passed for his criminal history to be overlooked and to determine him to be a fit and proper person. 5. On 23 December 2022, Mr Voutef filed his application with this Tribunal for administrative review of the Decision, pursuant to section 83B of the HBA and section 9 of the ADR Act. The Applicant's position is that the correct and preferable decision for this Tribunal is to set aside the Decision and replace it with a decision granting him a licence in the categories of Wall & Floor Tiler and Waterproofing Technician. In his view, he is a fit and proper person to hold such a contractor licence and sufficient time has elapsed since he engaged in criminal conduct, and he has rehabilitated. He explains that from 2015 to 2019 he suffered from addiction to methamphetamine, brain injuries attributed to assaults, depression and anxiety, but he has since addressed his drug dependency issues with therapy and rehabilitation. He notes that he has not had any fresh offences since 2019, and that the offences he did commit had nothing to do with his work at the time. He wishes to contribute to the community in a positive way and return to the trade for which he qualified in 2006. 6. The Respondent's position is that that the correct and preferable decision for this Tribunal is to affirm the Decision to refuse the licence, as the Applicant is disqualified from holding a licence because he has been convicted of offences involving dishonesty within the last 10 years for which he has served custodial sentences. According to the Respondent, those offences should not be ignored because they were serious and insufficient time has passed for the Applicant to be safely accredited to the public. 7. For the reasons that follow, and having considered all the circumstances, I find that the Decision to refuse the Applicant a contractor licence should be set aside, and that a contractor licence should be granted to the Applicant in the categories of Wall & Floor Tiler and Waterproofing Technician. The Relevant Legislation 1. The HBA offers protection to consumers in New South Wales by regulating residential building work and specialist work. In Division 2 it provides for the licensing and regulation of those engaged in residential building work. It prohibits a person from contracting to do any residential building work or specialist work without holding a contractor licence. The Respondent says that by issuing contractor licences, it is representing to consumers that the licence holder has met the relevant standards of fitness and propriety under the HBA and is authorised to do the work specified in the licence. 2. Part 3 of the HBA deals with licences and certificates. Section 19(1) empowers the Secretary (defined in Schedule 1 to mean "the Commission for Fair Trading, Department of Customer Service", i.e., the Respondent), to grant contractor licences for purposes of the HBA. Section 19(4) of the HBA provides that the regulations may make provision for or with respect to such matters concerning a contractor licence. 3. Section 21 of the HBA bears the heading "Authority conferred by contractor licences" and provides as follows: 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). … (2) The authority conferred by a contractor licence— (a) is subject to the conditions applicable to the contractor licence for the time being, and (b) may, on the application of the holder of the contractor licence, be varied by an order of the Secretary set out in a notice served on the holder of the contractor licence. 1. Part 3 of the Home Building Regulation 2014 (NSW) ("HBR") contains provisions on categories of work for contractor licenses. Clause 13 provides: For the purposes of sections 21 (1) (a) and 27 (1) (a) of the Act— … (b) the following trade categories of residential building work are prescribed— … (xxi) wall and floor tiling, (xxii) waterproofing. 1. Schedule 4 to the HBR contains "extended descriptions of work authorised by contractor licences or certificates" for the relevant categories, including Wall and floor tiling and Waterproofing. 2. Section 20 of the HBA makes it mandatory for the Respondent to refuse an application for a contractor licence according to the following provisions: 20 Issue of contractor licences (1) The Secretary must refuse an application for a contractor licence if— (a) the Secretary is not satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a contractor licence, or (a1) the Secretary is not satisfied as to the matters of which the Secretary is required to be satisfied by sections 33B and 33C, or (b) the applicant is a mentally incapacitated person, or (c) the applicant is disqualified by this Act or the regulations from holding a contractor licence, or … (1A) Without limiting subsection (1)(a), in determining whether an applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence the Secretary is to consider whether the applicant is of good repute, having regard to character, honesty and integrity. 1. Section 33A of the HBA, sets out circumstances where a person is "disqualified from holding an authority (other than an owner-building permit)". Section 33A of the HBA appears in Division 4 ("Provisions relating to contractor licences, certificates and owner-builder permits") and is relevant to section 20(1)(c) of the HBA (which requires a licence to be refused if the Applicant is disqualified by the HBA). The definition of an "authority" under clause 1 of Schedule 1 Definitions and other interpretative provisions of the HBA includes a "contractor licence (whether or not an endorsed contractor licence)." 2. Of relevance to the present case, section 33A provides: 33A Disqualification from holding authorities (1) A person is disqualified from holding an authority (other than an owner-builder permit) if the person— (a) has been convicted in New South Wales or elsewhere of an offence involving dishonesty within the last 10 years, unless the Secretary has determined under subsection (2) that the offence should be ignored, or … (2) The Secretary may determine that an offence committed by a person should be ignored for the purposes of this section because of the time that has passed since the offence was committed or because of the triviality of the acts or omissions giving rise to the offence… Jurisdiction and Issues to Determine 1. According to section 9 of the ADR Act and sections 28 and 30 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) ("CAT Act"), the Tribunal has jurisdiction over a decision of an administrator if enabling legislation provides that applications may be made to the Tribunal for administrative review. 2. Part 4A of the HBA deals with administrative reviews by the Tribunal. 83A Definition In this Part— authority means— (a) a contractor licence (whether or not an endorsed contractor licence), or … 83B Administrative reviews by Tribunal (1) An applicant for the issue, alteration, renewal or restoration of an authority aggrieved by any decision of the Secretary relating to the application may apply to the Tribunal for an administrative review under the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 of the decision. … 1. Section 83B of the HBA thus gives this Tribunal jurisdiction, as it provides for an applicant for a contractor licence "aggrieved by any decision of the Secretary relating to the application" to apply to the Tribunal under the ADR Act for an administrative review of that decision. 2. In determining an application for administrative review, section 63 of the ADR Act provides that this Tribunal is to decide what is "the correct and preferable decision," having regard to "any relevant factual material, and any applicable written or unwritten law". The Tribunal is not restricted to consideration of the material that was before the original decision-maker but may have regard to any relevant material before it at the time of the review (Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577 at 129). 3. The Tribunal makes its own decision in place of the Respondent's and there is no presumption that the decision of the Respondent is correct. In determining an application for administrative review of a decision, the Tribunal may decide to affirm the decision, to vary the decision, to set aside the decision and make a decision in substitution, or to remit the matter for reconsideration by the administrator in accordance with any directions or recommendations of the Tribunal (ADR Act, section 63(3)). 4. Under section 38(2) of the CAT Act, the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inquire into and inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks fit, subject to the rules of natural justice. 5. Under section 38(4) of the CAT Act the Tribunal is to act with as little formality as the circumstances of the case permit and according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities or legal forms. 6. The relevant questions for the Tribunal in the present case are: 1. Is the Applicant disqualified by the HBA from holding a contractor licence? This requires a determination as to whether the Tribunal should ignore the Applicant's offences involving dishonesty in the last ten years either because of the time that has passed since they were committed or because of the triviality of the acts giving rise to the offences. 2. Is the Applicant a fit and proper person to hold a contractor licence? This entails consideration of whether the Applicant is of "good repute, having regard to character, honesty and integrity." Material before the Tribunal 1. The Tribunal has had regard to the following material provided by the parties. 2. The documentary material from the Applicant comprised: 1. NCAT Application filed on 23 December 2022, attaching the Respondent's decision of 8 December 2022 affirming the original decision to refuse him a contractor licence. 2. The Applicant's documents filed on 9 March 2023: 1. Affidavit of Paul Voutef sworn on 7 March 2023 ("PV"), including 23 attachments, including: 1. Mr Voutef's original 4 August 2022 application for a contractor's licence (including national police certificate); 2. The 5 October 2022 Refusal Notice from the Respondent; 3. Internal review request of 17 November 2022; 4. The 8 December 2022 decision of the Respondent affirming the decision to refuse the Applicant's application. 5. TAFE certificates for general construction (wall and floor tiling and waterproofing) obtained in 2006; 6. Receipt for registering business name of Citywide Tiling Australia in February 2023; 7. Certificate for completion of Watershed Day Program for drug and alcohol issues in 2016 (prior to his brother's death); 8. Certificates of completion of various rehabilitation programs in mid-2020, including Trip Program, 3-month High Intensity Program; 4-week EQUIPS Foundation Program; 9. Documents from early 2021 from Illawarra Brain Injury Service and psychologist Dr Alan Crockford medical report related to brain injury and recommendations; 10. Certificates from 11 November 2021 and 5 May 2022 of self-awareness training, rehabilitation and professional development for reintegration into the community; 11. August 2022 certificate of membership of Woonona Lion's Club, and photographs of volunteer service at Lion's Club; 12. Urine screening reports from February and March 2023 indicating negative testing for all prohibited substances. 1. Applicant's Outline of Submissions; 2. Support Letter of Hugh Churchward 3. Support Letter of Mark Beesley; 4. Support Letter of Darren Sollars; 5. Support Letter of Glenn Berry; 6. Support Letter of Pete Ryan; 7. Support Letter of Vanessa Buda; 8. Support Letter of Lyza Kyriacou; 9. Support Letter of Andy Flaherty; 1. The documentary material from the Respondent comprised: 1. The Respondent's materials under section 58 of the ADR Act, filed on 14 February 2023, including: 1. The Applicant's Application for Contractor Licence of 4 August 2023, including explanation of criminal offences committed and National Police Certificate issued on 19 July 2022; 2. Initial Assessment Sheet of 24 October 2022; 3. Email from the Respondent to the Applicant attaching the refusal notice of 24 October 2022. 4. Email from the Applicant requesting an internal review, and attaching support letters from Vanessa Buda, Pete Ryan, Mark Beesley, and Glenn Berry; a Woonona Lions Club Certificate of Membership; Certificate of Completion for seven programs of rehabilitation and positive lifestyle; 5. Correspondence between the Applicant and Respondent concerning the Internal Review process, including the Review Determination of 8 December 2022 and its statement of reasons. 1. The Respondent's written submissions filed with the Tribunal on 24 March 2023 . 1. All of the above evidence was admitted to the record, without objection from either side. The Respondent confirmed that there was no application for lodgement of confidential information under section 59 of the ADR Act and no expectation of the hearing requiring a private session. 2. At the hearing on 15 May 2023, the Applicant gave sworn evidence in person and answered questions from the Respondent's representative (Mr Jamie Coss from Customer Service NSW) and from the Tribunal. Mr Glenn Berry, Mr Darren Sollars and Ms Lyza Kyriacou also attended on behalf of the Applicant, gave sworn evidence, and answered questions from the Respondent and the Tribunal. Although the Applicant had been represented by the firm Maguire & McInerney Lawyers during the written phase of these proceedings, at the hearing Mr Voutef represented himself. He was, however, assisted by Ms Kyriacou, who in addition to speaking to the contents of her letter of support, made oral arguments on behalf of the Applicant. The Respondent did not object to Ms Kyriacou participating in that role, and the Tribunal allowed it. Factual Background Qualification and Work as a Tiler 1. Mr Voutef obtained construction certificates in wall and floor tiling and waterproofing from Macquarie Fields TAFE in 2006. In 2007, he was issued a contractor licence in the categories of Wall and Floor Tiler and Waterproofing Technician, which expired on 13 April 2013. 2. The National Police Certificate shows that prior to 2007, Mr Voutef had a criminal history, including offences from 2002-2005 related to prohibited substances, reckless or unlicensed driving, and stolen goods. Those offences, however, did not prevent him from acquiring his contractor licence in 2007. 3. In terms of his work as a tiler, there is no evidence in the record of any problems with his technical work. The evidence of Ms Kyriacou, who has known the Applicant for around 16 years and had worked with him as his secretary, testified (based on her experience, and not in an expert capacity) that tiling was what he was good at, and there had been no complaints about his work. Mr Voutef stated in his affidavit that he has developed a passion for his trade which is reflected in the quality of his work, and that he has established a substantial client base sufficient to set up his own business. 4. As described further below, Mr Voutef engaged in further criminal activity in the period from around 2016 to 2019. The Applicant states that the criminal acts in question "did not have anything to do with [his] work at the time". Criminal History and Incarceration in the Last 10 Years 1. A National Police Certificate dated 19 July 2022 that was submitted with Mr Voutef's application for a new licence in August 2022, lists the most recent disclosable court outcomes. These include custodial sentences ordered by the Wollongong District Court, with the most recent (24-month) sentence commencing on 11 October 2019, and the 15-month non-parole period concluding on 10 January 2021. The offences in question were committed in 2019 and included (i) suspected stolen goods on premises; (ii) possession or use of a prohibited weapon without a permit, (iii) supply of prohibited drug (indictable but less than commercial quantity). 2. Mr Voutef was also sentenced in 2018 to 18 months prison (10 months non-parole period) for offences he committed in 2017 relating to driving of a motor vehicle while disqualified and with illicit drug present in his blood, and having goods suspected as stolen in his personal custody. 3. In 2016, Mr Voutef was given a custodial sentence and ordered to a residential drug rehabilitation program for offences relating to damage to property, theft and larceny that were committed in early 2015. 4. Mr Voutef explained in his affidavit that his offending during the period 2016 to 2019 came as a result of "stresses involved with acting as [his] mother's full-time carer due to her early onset dementia and the death of [his] brother." This culminated in mental health issues and he became addicted to methamphetamine, that resulted in criminal behaviour. These explanations were supported by the evidence of Ms Kyriacou, and in the psychological and medical assessment reports that the Applicant submitted. 5. Mr Voutef's August 2022 application for a licence also contained the following explanations for his recent criminal activity: [Re: charges in 2020] My brother's belongings were brought to my house after his death and some things were stolen property… [Re: charges in 2020] My addiction had led me to being around the wrong crowd and on this occasion I was charged with various items that one of my associates had put in my duffle bag without my knowledge… [Re: charges in 2018] I made bad decisions while I was under the influence of drugs, I did not know that the vehicle was unregistered and was stolen as it was an associate's car [Re: charges in 2017] I was not coping with my brother's death and drove his car [re: charges in 2016] I was driving to obtain drugs needed with drug addiction on this occasion was not thinking straight and under the influence… [re: charges in 2015] I was under the influence and wanted my belongings returned so I broke into my dealer's car and took his glasses… Mr Voutef's Improvement and Rehabilitation Efforts 1. Mr Voutef's custodial sentence ended in January 2021. He has since that time made steady and commendable efforts at his rehabilitation. Although his explanation for recent the criminal conduct relates to stress and relapse into drug problems associated with his brother's death in November 2016 and his mother's dementia (both documented in the record), he states that he understands that "this is no excuse for my behaviour". He states his belief that "I have now addressed these issues through my commitment to therapy and rehabilitation. I believe I can now contribute to the community in a positive way." 2. The following evidence is in the record relating to Mr Voutef's efforts to improve and rehabilitate: 1. Certificates of Courses Completed before release from prison: 1. 3 July 2020: completion of three week Trip Program providing awareness with respect to the impact of driving related crimes. 2. 28 July 2020: completion of 3-month High Intensity Program Unit, involving intensive rehabilitation and release planning, to prevent reoffending and drug addiction among inmates. 3. 31 July 2020: completion of 6-week voluntary Positive Lifestyle Program with the Salvation Army, with the chaplain of South Coast Correctional Centre, that provides counselling with regards to grief, loss, stress, anger and future life directions. 4. 27 May 2020: completion of the 4-week EQUIPS Foundation Program, a program for helping offenders with history of addiction by providing tools to avoid addictive behaviours. 1. Certificates of Courses Completed after release from prison: 1. 11 November 2021: attendance at 10-week Careforce Life Keys Valiant Man program, involving professional development in relation into reintegration into the community. 2. 5 May 2022: completion of 18-hour Understanding of Self Help (RUSH) Program, for self-awareness and rehabilitation, and tools to regulate emotions and avoid negative coping methods (drugs). 1. Evidence of Continued Absence of Drug Use 1. Mr Voutef supplied reports from voluntary urine screening tests that show he tested negative for all prohibited substances, on 17 February 2023; 23 February 2023, and 2 March 2023. 2. Mr Voutef testified during the Hearing in response to questions from the Tribunal that he has continued to refrain from drug use. 1. Evidence of Community Service 1. Mr Voutef became a member of the Woonona Lion's Club in August 2002. He provided his certificate of membership. 2. Mr Voutef also provided photographs depicting him volunteering at a charity events organised by the Lion's Club in March 2023. 3. Ms Kyriacou, who is a director of the Woonona Lion's Club, stated at the hearing that Mr Voutef has recently become an office holder with the Club. Her letter of support dated 22 November 2022 described him as a "dedicated, hardworking and innovative" individual who "never misses the opportunity to help others and every project we are part of in the community and he is always one of the first to offer his time and skills." 1. Letters of Support: 1. Hugh Churchward: Mr Churchward is a psychotherapist who has been seeing Mr Voutef weekly since August 2022, who attests to his "great motivation and determination to make the necessary changes in his life" and the insights he has developed into the detrimental effects of his prior actions (of which Mr Churchward was aware) on himself and those around him. Mr Churchward noted that Mr Voutef is no longer living in the same area as his offending and does not have contact with the people he had when offending and this was part of a conscious effort to make changes to reduce the risk of re-offending. He notes he has surrounded himself with people with a community-minded approach to life. expressed the believe that being able to re-enter work and meaningfully participate through doing what he knows, i.e. through tiling and waterproofing, would be an invaluable contribution to the Applicant's sense of self-worth. 2. Mark Beesley: Mr Beesley is a senior custodial case management officer at the South Coast Correctional Centre, who worked with and assessed Mr Voutef while in custody and determined he was "motivated and ready to make positive changes in his life to mitigate risk factors with support from interventions". 3. Darren Sollars is a friend whom he met through the Lighthouse Church and the Lions Club. He wrote about Mr Voutef's inspiring efforts to grow, and also the impressive assistance he provided to him (for no charge and no contract) for his home renovations. 4. Glenn Berry is a chaplain at South Coast Correctional Centre who has known Mr Voutef for over three years in the prison system and then outside as a free person in the community. He has assisted Mr Voutef with integration into the community through personal interaction and regular church meetings and speaks with him for phone support fortnightly. He describes the positive lifestyle program undertaken while an inmate, and also notes that the Applicant has learned to manage and regulate his emotions and developed excellent communication skills and a high level of ethical standards suitable to the construction industry (in which Mr Berry was previously a business owner himself as a roofer). 5. Pete Ryan is a builder and former colleague of Mr Voutef from when he was working as a tiler. He refers to his positive attitude at work and excellent communication skills and high level of customer satisfaction. He notes that "even when he had dramas in his life he never let me down." 6. Vanessa Buda is a longstanding friend of the Applicant who is familiar with his police record and past addiction problems. She describes the experience Mr Voutef had looking after his mother, and the impact of Mr Voutef's brother's death. She also describes some of the work he had done for her as a tiler and that he did an excellent job. She has offered to help him with office work if he gets his contractor's licence and confirms that there is a "good networking supporting Paul this time and I feel he is already showing examples of being a positive member of the community." 7. Lyza Kyriacou wrote a letter in her capacity as board director of Woonona Lion's Club and wrote of his dedication and hard work for community projects. She says she has spoken to the Applicant at length about his criminal history and believes it is behind him and that he takes responsibility for his actions and wants to give back to the community. 8. Andy Flaherty knows the Applicant through the Lighthouse Church and considers that his time in corrections taught him valuable lessons about how to be a positive contributor to society. He notes that he has clearly demonstrated, since January 2021, a "commitment to his personal development and his faith." 1. Witness Evidence ort at Hearing: 1. Glenn Berry (as noted above, a chaplain at South Coast Correctional Centre) testified in support of the Applicant's application for a contractor's licence. He testified about his continuing contact with the applicant since he was released from prison and the work he has put into himself the last five years to make changes in his life. Mr Berry has prior experience in the building industry as a roofer. He did not claim expertise as a tiler but confirmed that Mr Voutef has integrity and would trust him as a contractor. He confirmed his support for Mr Voutef's application, even after the Respondent's representative described the criminal acts for which Mr Voutef had been sentenced. 2. Darren Sollars (as noted above, a friend of around 2 years through the Lighthouse Church and the Lions Club) described tiling assistance that Mr Voutef had provided for him at no charge and without contract, and the outstanding skill he showed. He spoke about Mr Voutef's improvements in mental health and the commitment he shows to community service. 3. Lyza Kyriacou has known Mr Voutef for 16 years and brought him into the Woonona Lion's Club. She knew him when he was undergoing stress trying to get care for his mother, and dealing with his middle brother's suicide. She described some of the background details to some of the charges (facts which the Respondent noted were not corroborated as the solicitors had not placed the police fact sheets in the record). Ms Kyriacou commented on the progress that Mr Voutef has made, and how he has grown, that he did not relapse when his mother died but rather reached out to those in his support network. She also described an upcoming project of the Lion's Club for building work for a women and children's refuge and that she would like the Applicant to assist with that project for tiling inside the units. She said that Mr Voutef appreciated that it is a serious thing to have a criminal record and an honour to hold a contractor's licence. She believes that Mr Voutef has demonstrated his readiness to hold a contractor's licence. 1. Mr Voutef's own evidence. As described above, Mr Voutef testified in his affidavit about his working background and his criminal conduct in the past. He pointed out that the offences he committed did not have anything to do with his work but stemmed from stress from acting as his late mother's full-time carer and the death of his brother. He realises that the resultant addictions and mental health issues do not excuse his behaviour but he believes he has addressed these issues through his commitment to therapy and rehabilitation. At the hearing, Mr Voutef confirmed his understanding that the home building industry is regulated for the protection of consumers and that only fit and proper persons should be licensed. He also testified that he followed through with everything on parole, with the result that his parole was cancelled early. He is looking forward to getting back into tiling and has invested in new tools. 1. The Tribunal found the evidence of the three supporting witnesses and the Applicant himself to be credible, compelling, and consistent with the Applicant having made steady and commendable efforts at rehabilitation and having a commitment to establishing a tiling business, not only for gainful employment but also as a means to contribute back to the community. 2. Indeed, the Respondent described the self-improvement efforts of the Applicant as "laudable" but submitted that he nevertheless "falls foul of the legislation". The Tribunal accordingly turns now to consider whether, in the circumstances as described above, the Applicant should be refused a contractor's licence under the legislation. First Issue to be Determined: Is the Applicant a disqualified person within section 33A of the HBA Was the Applicant convicted of an offence involving dishonesty within last 10 years? 1. A contractor licence must be refused, pursuant to section 20 of the HBA, if the applicant is "disqualified by this Act or the regulations from holding a contracting licence". Section 33A(1)(a) provides that a person is disqualified from holding a contracting licence if that person has been convicted of an "offence involving dishonesty within the last 10 years, unless the Secretary has determined under subsection (2) that the offence should be ignored." 2. As for the first element of Section 33A(1)(a), there is no question that the applicant has been convicted of an "offence involving dishonesty within the last 10 years". Although the phrase "offence involving dishonesty" is not defined in the HBA , its meaning has been considered by the Tribunal and Appeal Panel in a number of decisions, including in Luk v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2019] NSWCATAP 23, in which the Appeal Panel agreed with the following propositions set out in Farah v Director General, Department of Finance and Services [2014] NSWCATAP 23 ("Farah"): (1) an "offence involving dishonesty" does not require that the relevant statutory provision contain the word "dishonest" or "dishonesty" (examples being stealing, robbery and offences where property is gained through indirect means such as false pretences and conspiracy to defraud); (2) an offence involving dishonesty does not permit an inquiry into the conduct or state of mind of the person concerned when committing the offence; (3) it is the offence itself that must involve dishonesty, and it is not permissible to look behind a conviction for that offence to consider the particular facts of the case. 1. As the Respondent pointed out, and the Applicant conceded, the following court outcomes for "offences of dishonesty" are disclosed in the National Police Certificate from the last ten years (emphasis added for dishonesty offences): 1. Wollongong District Court 7 August 2020 (affirming earlier District Court decision of 24 March 2020): Goods suspected stolen in/on premises (not m/v) Possess or use a prohibited weapon without permit-t2 Possess unauthorised pistol-t2 Supply prohibited drug > indictable & < commercial quantitity-t1 Imprisonment: 24 months commencing 11/10/2019 concluding 10/10/2021 non parole period: 15 months commencing 11/102019 concluding 10/01/2021. 2. Wollongong Local Court 18 October 2018 Goods suspected stolen in/on premises (m/v) Imprisonment 18 months commencing 14/12/2017 concluding 13/06/2019 non-parole period 14/12/2017 concluding 13/10/2018. 3. Sutherland District Court (affirming decision of Port Kembla Local Court of 23 January 2015) possess destroy or damage property > $14000-t1 Dishonestly obtain property by deception-t1 Dispose property-theft=serious indictable offence < =$5000-t2 Goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (not m/v) Larceny value <=$2000-t2 Imprisonment: 18 months commencing 23/01/2015 concluding 22/07/2016 non parole period with conditions: 6 months commencing 23/01/2015 concluding 22/07/2015. 1. Offences of stealing and larceny are considered dishonesty offences, as confirmed by the Appeal Panel in Luk and Farah. 2. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty within the last 10 years" within the meaning of section 33A(1)(a). The element that the Tribunal must consider next is whether those offences should be ignored either because of their triviality or because of the passage of time since their commission. Should the offences nevertheless be "ignored"? 1. It is common ground that under Section 33A(1)(a), dishonesty offences should be ignored either if they are trivial or there has been a sufficient effluxion of time. Triviality and passage of time are alternatives and do not need to be established cumulatively in order for the offences to be ignored. The Respondent expressly acknowledged this at the hearing. 2. The Respondent submits that the dishonesty offences were not trivial. The relevant principles cited by the Respondent include observations made by the Tribunal in Livaja v Commissioner for Fair Trading, Department of Finance, Services and Innovation [2020] NSWCATOD 17 ("Livaja"), which dealt with a provision in the Property Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 (NSW)similar to section 33A of the HBA. In that case, the applicant was convicted of dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception, received a good behaviour bond for 18 months, and was ordered to pay compensation for dishonestly selling the same item to three separate people at the same time for personal gain. The principles stated by the Tribunal in Livaja included: The triviality of the acts or omissions giving rise to the offence invites an examination of the conduct of the person at the time the offence was committed. The word 'triviality' may relate to the amount of money involved in the offences the subject of the convictions. However, it may also relate to the substance of the offences and whether the relevant acts were carried out on the spur of the moment or involved planning. 1. The Respondent argues that the circumstances in which the Applicant was imprisoned for these offences over the last ten years shows that the offending is not trivial. It refers to section 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), which provides that the Court must not sentence an offender to imprisonment unless it is satisfied, having considered all possible alternatives, that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate. The Respondent points out that in the last 10 years, the Applicant has been sentenced to periods of imprisonment on four occasions, demonstrating that the offending was not "trivial". Applicant does not argue that the offences were trivial. 2. The Tribunal agrees that, in aggregate, the Applicant's criminal conduct (including drug and weapon offences) was not "trivial" and the District Court was satisfied that it was appropriate in the circumstances of the Applicant's multiple offences to order a custodial sentence. The Tribunal does not have before it sufficient detail about the particulars of the dishonesty offences themselves to make findings specific to the triviality or otherwise of those offences individually, as distinct from the drug and weapon offences. Some explanations appear in Mr Voutef's application form about the circumstances for some of the stolen property (e.g., belonging to his brother). In any event, the Applicant did not assert the offences were trivial, and the Tribunal need only be satisfied either that the offences were "trivial" or that sufficient time has passed since they were committed to find that the offences should be ignored. 3. The Parties do have different positions with respect to whether the offences should be ignored "because of the time that has passed since the offence[s] [were] committed." 4. The Applicant submits that his most recent dishonesty offence was committed in 2019, and thus some four years have passed since his last dishonesty offence and now. The Applicant points out that the offending behaviour was not linked to his work, that he has since addressed his alcohol, drug and mental health issues, and he has not been involved in any further criminal activity. The Applicant also submitted that it is clear from the evidence provided that his criminal behaviour was "inherently linked to the drug issues, mental health issues and trauma caused by the death of his brother" and extensive efforts have been made since then with respect to rehabilitation. 5. The Respondent submits that insufficient time has passed, noting that although the last criminal offence was committed four years ago, his parole only ended around two years ago. When asked at the hearing how long would be sufficient, Mr Coss acknowledged that there is no prescribed time in the HBA but suggested a further period of non-offending of another 2.5 years or so would be appropriate, noting he could always make another application (albeit he may run into practical difficulties with the lapsing of qualifications and the need to re‑train). The Tribunal asked the Respondent from what point in time the "sufficient time" should run, and the Respondent said in this case it would be appropriate to use the date of the last offence, i.e. 2019, around four years ago. 6. The Respondent referred to a number of decisions of this Tribunal which supported the following propositions: (i) The period of time sufficient to warrant an exercise of the discretion to ignore an offence, must be viewed in the context of the offence for which an Applicant has been convicted. (Gambino v Commissioner for NSW Fair Trading [2014] NSWCATOD 135 at [52]) (ii) The appropriate length of time to have passed before the discretion is exercised also depends on the triviality and nature of the acts or omissions (Hunt v Director General, Department of Services Technology and Administration [2010] NSWADT 186 at [21]). (iii) Whether or not sufficient time has passed to ignore offences depends on the circumstances peculiar to each applicant and there is no one rule that fits all applicants. (Salcedo v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2016] NSWCATOD 19 at [53]). 1. The Tribunal was referred to the following decisions addressing whether an offence should be ignored on the basis of a passage of time: * Bek v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2004] NSWADT 149: the Tribunal held the period of time necessary to have passed must be linked to the offence for which an applicant has been convicted. Mr Bek, who applied for a pawnbroker licence, was convicted of "Driver/Rider State False Name or Address" and was fined $300. The Tribunal agreed that it was an offence at the lower end of the scale and that three and a half years was sufficient to warrant ignoring the offence. * Hunt v Director General, Department of Services Technology and Administration [2010] NSWADT 186: offences of obtaining $6,957.08 by deception were considered serious and 5 years since the offences was not sufficient to determine the offences should be ignored. A period of 8 years was the appropriate time given that the offences had occurred in the course of the licensed activity, which was real estate sales. * Parvin v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2005] NSWADT 34: Mr Parvin was convicted of traffic offences of dishonesty, including producing someone else's licence to police when he did not possess a licence. He received a sentence of home detention. Two years was held insufficient time to exercise the discretion to ignore, for a real estate licence. * Yelland v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2005] NSWADT 293: a 14‑month period since giving false information to police to avoid the consequences of action was found insufficient to warrant ignoring the offence in the context of an application for a real estate agent licence. * Eleter v Director-General, Department of Fair Trading [2002] NSWADT 138: a period of four and a half years since receiving stolen property was found to be a sufficient period for the discretion to be exercised in favour of granting a pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers licence. * Nizhnikov v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2006] NSWADT 284, 15 months was considered an insufficient passage of time since the conviction for two serious offences (of assault occasioning actual bodily harm) and the applicant was still on a good behaviour bond. Discretion was not exercised in favour of granting a real estate licence. * Song v Commissioner for Fair Trading, NSW Office of Fair Trading [2006] NSWADT 218: a period of less than two years since convictions for "goods in personal custody suspected of being stolen" was insufficient and the refusal to grant a certificate as a salesperson under the Property Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 was affirmed. * Hadroj v Director General, Department of Fair Trading [2002] NSWADT 95: a 12-month period since conviction for four offences (three counts of goods in custody reasonably suspected of being stolen and one count of selling second-hand goods without holding a licence) was insufficient to warrant ignoring the offence. The refusal to grant a second-hand dealers licence was affirmed. * Farah v Director General, Department of Finance and Services [2013] NSWADT 198 (which summarised many of the above decisions at [86] to [93], but was set aside on appeal for other reasons in Farah): A four-year period since committing a serious money laundering offence was considered insufficient to set aside cancelling a real estate agent licence. * Livaja: a three-year period since committing an offence "dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by Deception" (by dishonestly selling the same item to three separate people at the same time for personal gain) was insufficient to warrant exercising discretion to ignore the offence and grant a real estate agent licence. The applicant had also failed to comply with compensation orders and had a gambling addiction. 1. The Respondent submits that, taking into account the decisions cited above, the seriousness of the Applicant's conduct, the significant sentences and imprisonment imposed, and the seriousness of the offences involving dishonesty, insufficient time has passed to warrant the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion pursuant to section 16(2) of the HBA. 2. The Tribunal disagrees with the Respondent. The Tribunal has considered the positions of the Parties, the principles derived from the above-cited cases, and the circumstances specific to Mr Voutef and finds that sufficient time has passed, since he committed dishonesty offences in 2019, to warrant ignoring those offences under the discretion available in section 33A of the HBA. 3. The Tribunal has considered not only the passage of four years (which is longer than several of the cases cited above), but also that the offences did not occur in the course of the licensed activity of tiling and waterproofing. This distinguishes his case from those where the dishonesty offences were more closely connected with the licensed activity in question (such as selling stolen goods in context of an application for a second-hand dealer's licence; or money laundering funds in context of an application for a real estate sales licence). In those cases, the grant of a licence would have greater potential to undermine the confidence of consumers in the relevant industry. Furthermore, and unlike several of the cases cited above, in the present case, there is extensive evidence of the Applicant's rehabilitation during the four year period in question. The documentary and testimonial evidence (summarised at paragraph 39 above) demonstrates his recovery and his removal of himself from the circumstances that drew him into the criminal conduct in question. 4. In these circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that dishonesty offences committed by Mr Voutef in the last ten years should be ignored for purposes of section 33A(2) of the HBA because of the time that has passed since they were committed. Accordingly, the Applicant is not "disqualified by this Act or the regulations from holding a contractor licence" within the meaning of section 20(1)(c) of the HBA. 5. The Tribunal next turns to whether Mr Voutef's application for a contractor licence should be refused on the basis that he is not a "fit and proper person" to hold a contractor licence under section 20(1)(a). Second Issue to be Determined: Is the Applicant a Fit and Proper Person? 1. Section 20(1)(a) of the HBA requires a contractor licence to be refused if "the Secretary is not satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a contractor licence." Guidance for what "fit and proper" means is found in section 20(1A), which provides: (1A) Without limiting subsection (1)(a), in determining whether an applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence the Secretary is to consider whether the applicant is of good repute, having regard to character, honesty and integrity. 1. Guidance as to the meaning of "fit and proper" is also found in the common law. In Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v The State of New South Wales (1955) 93 CLR 127 characteristics of fitness and propriety were said to include knowledge, honesty and ability. 2. The Respondent referred to the following oft-cited passages of Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 (concerning fitness and propriety for holding a broadcasting licence) (at 380, Toohey and Gaudron JJ): The expression a "fit and proper person", takes its meaning from its context, from the activities in which the person is or will be engaged and the ends to be served by those activities. The concept of "fit and proper" cannot be entirely divorced from the conduct of the person who is or will be engaging in those activities. However, depending upon the nature of the activities the question may be whether improper conduct has occurred, whether it is likely to occur, whether it can be assumed that it will not occur, or whether the general community will have confidence that it will not occur. The list is not exhaustive but it does indicate that, in certain contexts, character (because it provides an indication of likely future conduct) or reputation (because it provides indication of public perceptions as to likely future conduct) may be sufficient to grant a finding that a person is not fit and proper to undertake activities in question. … The question whether a person is fit and proper is one of value judgement. In that process the seriousness or otherwise of particular conduct is a matter for valuation by the decision maker. So too is the weight, if any to be given to matters favouring the person whose fitness and propriety are under consideration. 1. The Tribunal has considered the assessment of criminality in relation to fitness and propriety, in Grenfell v Director General Department of Finance and Services [2013] NSWADT 57 (at [15]): The issue of whether a person is fit and proper due to past criminal conduct is a matter of judgement. In considering that issue the Tribunal is required to take into account the nature and seriousness of the original misconduct, any events relevant to an assessment of the applicant's fitness which have occurred since then, the candour with which the applicant has approached the issue of past misconduct, the applicant's explanation of the misconduct, the impact of the effluxion of time, and the applicant's present circumstances and reputation. 1. The Respondent also cited cases explaining the concept of "good repute", which goes to the public estimation of a person, while "fit and proper" goes to such matters of character "as to whether the applicant is possessed of sufficient moral integrity and rectitude of character as to permit him or her to be safely accredited to the public … as a person to be entrusted with the sort of work that the licence entails (Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board (1979) SASR 70 AT 76 ("Sobey")). 2. The principles laid down by the High Court have been distilled by the Appeal Panel of this Tribunal in Austin v Commissioner of Fair Trading & Anor [2016] NSWCATAP 179 at [58] as follows: (1) The very purpose of the words "fit and proper" is to give the widest scope for judgment and for rejection on that ground. (2) "Fit" with respect to an office is said to involve honesty, knowledge and ability. (3) The expression "fit and proper" person, standing alone, carries no precise meaning. It takes its meaning from its context, from the activities in which the person is or will be engaged and the ends to be served by those activities. (4) Depending on the nature of the activities, the question may be whether improper conduct has occurred, whether it is likely to occur, whether it can be assumed it will not occur, or whether the general community will have confidence that it will not occur. (5) In certain contexts, character (because it provides indication of likely future conduct) may be sufficient to ground a finding that person is not fit and proper to undertake the activities in question. (6) The expression meant that an applicant needed to show not only that he has the requisite knowledge of the duties and responsibilities of the holder of the particular licence but also that he is possessed of sufficient moral integrity and rectitude to be accredited to the public as a person to be entrusted with the work the subject of the licence. 1. The Applicant submits that he has displayed his good character and community involvement through his membership with the Lions Club Woonona, where he frequently volunteers at community fundraisers and events. He is held in high regard by this organisation, as evidence by the support letter and testimony of Ms Kyriacou. The Applicant further submits he has a passion for his role in the community as a tiler and water-proofer. His skill and professionalism in his trade is evidence by the support letters of Pete Ryan, Vanessa Buda and Darren Sollars, who all attest to the quality of his work and reliability and his trustworthiness. There is no evidence of complaints about his work and he never had his licence subject to any conditions. The Applicant submits that there is extensive evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant is of good character and is a fit and proper person to hold a contractor's licence. 2. The Respondent's position is that by pointing out that his convictions have nothing to do with the contractor licence sought, the Applicant "misunderstands the Act and what granting a contracting licence means. The Act is a protective Act for consumers involving all aspects of residential building work and specialist work in NSW. The public have the expectation and right to expect that authorities issued by Fair Trading have been determined with consideration of its duty of care responsibilities and due diligence." The Respondent also noted that an Applicant's personal interest in obtaining a licence cannot outweigh the public interest in having full confidence in the professionalism of people in the industry. The complete criminal history is relevant to an assessment of the character, honesty and integrity of the Applicant in accordance with section 20(1A) of the Act. 3. The Respondent does acknowledge that the Applicant has taken laudable steps towards rehabilitation, including completion of courses and assisting charitable organisations. It submits that "a further period of good behaviour within the community is required for the Applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that he has reformed." He has not, in the Respondent's view, demonstrated sufficient evidence of rehabilitation or that he is a person to be entrusted with the sort of work which the licence entails. 4. The Tribunal has considered the positions of the Parties as outlined above, and the guidance provided by decisions of the High Court and this Tribunal on the meaning of "fit and proper person" in the context of a licensing regime. 5. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Voutef is a "fit and proper person" to be entrusted with a contractor's licence for tiling and waterproofing. As to his fitness, knowledge and skill as a tiler and waterproofer, the Tribunal is persuaded that he has the requisite skill and ability and commitment to his trade, as demonstrated by his TAFE qualifications, many years of experience lack of evidence of any prior complaint about his performance, and the positive evidence in support that is found in the letters from Pete Ryan, Vanessa Buda and Darren Sollars. The testimony at the hearing from Mr Voutef himself, as well as Mr Sollars and Ms Kyriacou confirmed this. Each of these witnesses maintained their view while knowing of the criminal offences committed by Mr Voutef. The Tribunal has already noted that the evidence of these witnesses was credible, compelling, and consistent. They demonstrated not only Mr Voutef's skill and commitment as a tiler but his efforts at self-improvement and determination not to revert to criminal conduct. Collectively they also demonstrated a robust support network around Mr Voutef. 6. The Tribunal disagrees with the Respondent that Mr Voutef fails to understand the seriousness of his crimes and the importance of the public having confidence generally in those who are entrusted with contractors licences in the residential building industry. Mr Voutef assured the Tribunal that he appreciated the seriousness of the responsibility of holding a licence and the importance of consumers being able to have trust in the industry, whether or not his prior offences were connected with his work. He has been candid about his criminal history, and has made no attempt to hide it. 7. In view of the evidence of the Applicant's rehabilitation, his hard work towards self-improvement, the strength of his support network, and his recent track record of coping with grief without resorting to drug use, the Tribunal finds that improper conduct is not likely to reoccur. 8. The Tribunal also considers that the Applicant has demonstrated he is "possessed of sufficient moral integrity and rectitude of character as to permit him to be safely accredited to the public as a person to be entrusted with the sort of work which the licence entails" (Sobey). The record shows he made serious mistakes during a difficult period in his life, after he had taken on the heavy responsibility of caring for his ailing mother, and was then also facing the trauma of his brother's death. The reports of friends, counsellors, colleagues, fellow congregants at his church, and fellow members of the Lion's Club are consistent in their observations that Mr Voutef acknowledges the seriousness of his conduct and has been extremely committed to staying clear of prohibited substance, working hard for the community and moving on so that he may re‑establish his trade and contribute to society. 9. In the circumstances outlined above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant is a fit and proper person to be entrusted with a contractor licence in the categories of Wall & Floor Tiler and Waterproofing Technician within the meaning of section 20(1)(a) of the HBA. Conclusion 1. Section 63 of the ADR Act provides that: (1) In determining an application for an administrative review under this Act of an administratively reviewable decision, the Tribunal is to decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material then before it, including (a) any relevant factual material, (b) any applicable written or unwritten law. (2) For this purpose, the Tribunal may exercise all of the functions that are conferred or imposed by any relevant legislation on the administrator who made the decision. (3) In determining an application for the administrative review of an administratively reviewable decision, the Tribunal may decide: (a) to affirm the administratively reviewable decision, or (b) to vary the administratively reviewable decision, or (c) to set aside the administratively reviewable decision and make a decision in substitution for the administratively reviewable decision it set aside, or (d) to set aside the administratively reviewable decision and remit the matter for reconsideration by the administrator in accordance with any directions or recommendations of the Tribunal. 1. The Tribunal considers the correct and preferable decision in this case, having regard to the material before it, is to set aside the Respondent's decision refusing to grant Mr Voutef a contractor's licence and to make a decision in substitution granting him a contractor's licence, pursuant to section 63(3)(c) of the ADR Act. The Tribunal has reviewed the relevant provisions of the HBA and HBR set out in paragraphs 8 to 15 above, pertaining to the contractor's licence for which the Applicant applied. The Tribunal notes that the Respondent has raised no issue with the skills of the Applicant or any factor set out in sections 33B or 33C of the HBA Act. Mr Voutef stated that he was open to being on some kind of "probation" licence, and the Respondent confirmed at the hearing that a decision-maker under the Act may impose conditions. The Tribunal, however, does not consider it necessary to impose conditions on the licence. 2. Based on all the considerations set out above, and having regard to the material before me, I am satisfied that the correct and preferable decision is that the decision of the Respondent to refuse Mr Voutef a contractor's licence should be set aside. Mr Voutef should be granted a contractor's licence under the HBA in the categories of Wall & Floor Tiler and Waterproofing Technician. Orders 1. The Tribunal makes the following orders: 1. The Decision under review is set aside. 2. A contractor licence in the categories of Wall & Floor Tiler and Waterproofing Technician is to be issued to the Applicant under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW). ********** 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: 13 June 2023