NSW Caselaw
Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Aziz v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATOD 95 Hearing dates: 5 May 2017, Closing of submissions 31 May 2017 Date of orders: 22 June 2017 Decision date: 22 June 2017 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: J McAteer, Senior Member Decision: (1) The Respondent's decision to refuse the applicant's application for an individual contractor licence in the category of electrical work is affirmed. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE Law – Home Building Act - Nature of engagement – Lawful engagement – Requirement to be paid – Lawfully engaged –Time engaged -Residential building work Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Home Building Act 1989 Home Building Regulation 2004 (repealed) Cases Cited: Watts v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATOD 60 Atteya v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2016] NSWCATOD 113 Hale v Commissioner of Fair Trading [2015] NSWCATOD Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Milad Aziz (Applicant) Commissioner for Fair Trading (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: T Jenkins (Respondent)
Solicitors: In Person (Applicant) Legal Services for Fair Trading (Respondent) File Number(s): 2017/00047022 Publication restriction: Nil
Reasons for decision 1. This is an application for a review of an administrative decision of the Respondent Public Sector Agency, in respect of the applicant's application for an individual contractor licence in respect of electrical work. 2. The relevant legislation which governs the application to which the administrative decision relates is the Home Building Act 1989 (as amended). (the 'HBA'). 3. After considering all of the evidence and material filed during the course of these proceedings, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has not (as at the hearing date) satisfied the criteria as set out in the legislation, applicable regulations and subordinate legislation, so as to be issued with an Individual Contractor Licence in the category of electrical work under the HBA. In that regard based on the decision dated 22 September 2016 and affirmed on internal review on 21 December 2016, the correct and preferable decision is for the Tribunal to affirm the decision of the respondent.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate