Suares v Commissioner for Fair Trading, Department of Finance, Services and Innovation [2016] NSWCATOD 39

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Suares v Commissioner for Fair Trading, Department of Finance, Services and Innovation [2016] NSWCATOD 39 Hearing dates: 11 March 2016 Date of orders: 07 April 2016 Decision date: 07 April 2016 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: N S Isenberg, Senior Member Decision: The decision under review is affirmed Catchwords: Merits review - residential building industry; individual contractor licence; endorsed contractor licence; supervisor certificate: general building work; requisite level of relevant industry experience in a wide range of building construction work; instrument made under Home Building Act 1989; instrument made under Home Building Regulation 2004. Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Home Building Act 1989 Home Building Regulation 2004 Cases Cited: Commissioner of Fair Trading, Office of Finance and Services, NSW Fair Trading v Kassem [2015] NSWCATAP 173 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Clive Mark Suares (Applicant) Department of Finance, Services and Innovation (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Clive Mark Suares (Applicant in person) Department of Finance, Services and Innovation (Respondent in person) File Number(s): 1620003 Publication restriction: Nil

Reasons for decision

Background 1. On 2 July 2015 the Applicant applied to the Respondent pursuant to the Home Building Act 1989 (the Act) for an Individual Contractor Licence in the category of general building work (the Contractor Licence) as a variation to his existing license (the Application). On 10 September 2015 the Respondent refused the Application "as the applicant has not satisfied the practical experience requirements". The Applicant requested an internal review of the refusal and on 28 December 2015 the Applicant was notified that the original refusal was confirmed (the Decision). On 6 January 2016 the Applicant applied to the Tribunal to review the Decision.