Woolley Commissioner for Fair Trading, Office of Fair Trading [2005] NSWADT 127

CITATION: Woolley Commissioner for Fair Trading, Office of Fair Trading [2005] NSWADT 127 DIVISION: General Division APPLICANT PARTIES: Graham Edward Woolley RESPONDENT Commissioner for Fair Trading, Office of Fair Trading FILE NUMBER: 043253 HEARING DATES: 2/11/2004 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 04/21/2005 DATE OF DECISION: 06/08/2005

BEFORE: Molony P - Judicial Member APPLICATION: Home Builder - improper conduct - Home Building Act - home builder - improper conduct MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter Home Building Act 1989 LEGISLATION CITED : Home Building Regulation 1997 Home Building Regulation 2004 Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Board [1969] 2 AC 147 Clyne v NSW Bar Association (1960) 104 CLR 186 Federal Airports Corporation v Aerolineas Argentinas (1997) ALR 649 CASES CITED: Jadwan Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Health and Aged Care (2003) 204 ALR 55 Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales Inc v The Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000 [2005] NSWCA 9 Pinnacle Homes (Sydney) Pty Ltd v Director-General, Department of Fair Trading [2001] NSWADT 222 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355, [1998] HCA 28 APPLICANT REPRESENTATION: In person RESPONDENT J Coss, solicitor ORDERS: 1. The decision of the Commissioner made on 8 July 2004 that Mr Woolley was guilty of improper conduct by contracting to do and doing work for which he was not licenced with respect to the property at 17 Springside Road, Rozelle is set aside; 2. The other decision made by the Commissioner made on 8 July 2004 with respect to Mr Woolley being guilty of improper conduct are affirmed; 3. The decision of the Commissioner made 8 July 2004 to impose a monetary penalty of $3,000.00 is set aside, and in its place the Tribunal determines to impose a monetary penalty on Mr Woolley, which is to be paid by 7 July 2005, of:; i. $1,500.00 with respect to the finding that Mr Woolley is guilty of improper conduct by entering into a contract without the insurance required by the Act being in place;; ii. $1,000 with respect to the finding that Mr Woolley is guilty of improper conduct by contracting to do and doing work for which he did not hold a licence in respect of both the Chatswood and Crows Nest properties.