Mavay v Director General, Department of Finance & Services [2011] NSWADT 217

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Mavay v Director General, Department of Finance & Services [2011] NSWADT 217 Decision date: 13 September 2011 Jurisdiction: General Division Before: S Frost, Judicial Member Decision: Set aside the reviewable decision and remit the matter for reconsideration by the Respondent in accordance with a direction that the Respondent accept that the Applicant meets the "experience" requirement in the relevant determination, as referred to in [10] and [11] of these reasons Legislation Cited: Home Building Act 1989 Home Building Regulation 2004 Electricity (Consumer Safety) Act 2004 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Stephen Mavay (Applicant) Director General, Department of Finance & Services (Respondent) Representation: Coyne Legal (Applicant) B Bourke (Respondent) File Number(s): 113039

Reasons for decision 1GENERAL DIVISION (S FROST, JUDICIAL MEMBER)): In October 2010 Mr Mavay applied under the Home Building Act 1989 (HB Act) for a Qualified Supervisor Certificate - Electrical. His application was refused. That refusal decision is a reviewable decision for the purposes of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (ADT Act): s 83B of the HB Act. 2Mr Mavay applied for an internal review of that decision under s 53 of the ADT Act. Section 53(6) of the ADT Act requires the internal review to be finalised within 21 days, which in this case was by 24 January 2011. That deadline was not met, and so the internal review was taken by s 53(9)(b) of the ADT Act to be finalised on that day. As a result, Mr Mavay became entitled under s 55 of the ADT Act to apply to the Tribunal for review of the original refusal decision. He did so on 15 February 2011. 3In the meantime, the Respondent had notified Mr Mavay on 27 January 2011 - that is, three days after s 53 of the ADT Act treated the internal review as having been finalised (implicitly, adversely to Mr Mavay) - that the original decision had been overturned. But that position was reversed five days later when the Respondent notified Mr Mavay that the certificate had been cancelled on the basis that it had been issued in error. 4Despite those later events, Mr Mavay's application to the Tribunal is well founded and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the original refusal decision.