Obradovic v Commissioner for Fair Trading, Office of Fair Trading [2005] NSWADT 140

CITATION: Obradovic v Commissioner for Fair Trading, Office of Fair Trading [2005] NSWADT 140 DIVISION: General Division APPLICANT PARTIES: Todd Obradovic RESPONDENT Commissioner for Fair Trading, Office of Fair Trading FILE NUMBER: 053070 HEARING DATES: 19/05/2005 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 19/05/2005 DATE OF DECISION: 24/06/2005

BEFORE: Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President) APPLICATION: Home Builder - issue of contractor licence - Home Building Act - home builder - issue of contractor licence MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter Building Services Corporation Act 1989 LEGISLATION CITED : Home Building Act 1989 Home Building Regulation 1997 CASES CITED: Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales (1955) 93 CLR 127 APPLICANT REPRESENTATION: In person RESPONDENT V Griswold, solicitor ORDERS: The Commissioner's decision to refuse to issue Mr Obradovic with a contractor licence is affirmed

REASONS FOR DECISION Introduction 1 In November 1983, Mr Obradovic was issued with a contractor licence to do building work. He specialised in building new houses and built 69 houses during the period from 1985 to 1994. Sixteen of Mr Obradovic's clients lodged a total of 25 complaints against him in relation to his building work. In several cases the Commissioner for Fair Trading issued rectification orders against Mr Obradovic. While he complied with some of those orders, he did not comply with others and some of the clients concerned lodged insurance claims so that another builder could remedy the work. A total of $88,369 was paid in insurance claims to five of Mr Obradovic's customers. The Commissioner was successful in recovering only $11,702 from Mr Obradovic in relation to these claims. Mr Obradovic says that that is because he was not at fault. 2 In 1996 the Commissioner suspended Mr Obradovic's licence and it expired in October 1997. In August 2004 Mr Obradovic lodged a fresh application for a contractor licence to work as a builder. The Commissioner refused that application on three grounds. The first was that he was satisfied that Mr Obradovic had an unreasonable number of complaints made against him. (Home Building Regulation 1997 cl 25(1)(vii).) The second was that he was satisfied that Mr Obradovic had an unreasonable number of insurance claims paid in relation to his work. (Home Building Regulation 1997 cl 25(1)(x).) The third was that he was not satisfied that Mr Obradovic is a fit and proper person to hold a contractor licence. (Home Building Act 1989 s 20(1)(a).) Mr Obradovic has asked the Tribunal to review the Commissioner's decision. Issues 3 The issues which the Tribunal has to determine are: a) whether it is satisfied that Mr Obradovic has not had an unreasonable number of complaints made against him; b) whether it is satisfied that Mr Obradovic has not had an unreasonable number of insurance claims paid in relation to work that he carried out; and c) whether it is satisfied that Mr Obradovic is a fit and proper person to hold a contractor licence. This includes consideration of whether Mr Obradovic is of good repute having regard to character, honesty and integrity. History of complaints and insurance claims 4 Mr Obradovic has had a history of complaints against him. Although we do not have all the Commissioner's documents in relation to those complaints, in general the complaints were made after clients attempted to get Mr Obradovic to rectify defective or incomplete work. In several cases clients were unsuccessful in getting Mr Obradovic to rectify or complete the work. They then made complaints to the Commissioner or his predecessor, the Building Services Corporation. The following discussion is not intended to be a comprehensive examination of each complaint and claim, nor of all the parties' submissions about those complaints and claims. It is intended to be a summary of the position highlighting examples from various complaints and claims. The complaints can be categorised as follows: + Complaints made but not proceeded with because, for example, on investigation no defects were identified for which Mr Obradovic was responsible or the time period for making a complaint had expired. (See, for example, complaints by Gigg (items 26 and 36), Fajou (items 10 and 19).) + Complaints made but resolved between the client and Mr Obradovic informally. (See, for example, Rubino (item 4).) + Complaints made, inspections carried out and rectification order issued where Mr Obradovic complied with that order during the time specified or the complaint was withdrawn (See, for example, Horrobin (item 5), Tapping (item 6) and Oliver (item 14).) + Complaints made, inspections carried out and rectification order issued but Mr Obradovic failed to carry out the rectification to the satisfaction of the client or complete the work within the time frame or at all (See White (item 13), Keats (item 12), Coulton (item 15), Wadhera (items 28 and 33), Kljaic (items 29 and 31) and Grujic (item 35).)