Edwards v Department of Fair Trading [2019] NSWCATOD 5

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Edwards v Department of Fair Trading [2019] NSWCATOD 5 Hearing dates: 16 November 2018 Date of orders: 02 January 2019 Decision date: 02 January 2019 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: C Ludlow, Senior Member Decision: The decision under review is affirmed. Catchwords: PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – licensing and regulation – whether a fit and proper person to hold a contractor licence – whether convictions should be ignored because of passage of time Legislation Cited: Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Cases Cited: Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33 Cooper v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2016] NSWCATOD 15 Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No. 2) [1955] HCA 28; (1955) 93 CLR 127 Mereb v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2016] NSWCATAD 244 Texts Cited: D C Pearce and R S Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia, 8th edition, Lexis Nexis Butterworths, 2014 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Matthew Edwards (Applicant) Director-General, Office of Finance and Services, NSW Fair Trading (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Medcalf Grant Lawyers (Applicant) Mark Kelly (Respondent) File Number(s): 2018/00203201 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background 1. The applicant seeks review of a decision to refuse his application for a contractor licence under the Home Building Act 1989 in the category of electrician. 2. The applicant has worked as an electrician since 1997. He was convicted of a number of criminal offences in 2012 and received a custodial sentence which he served between 2012 and 2014. Notwithstanding this, he applied for and was issued with a contractor licence and a qualified supervisor certificate in 2013 by the respondent. In 2017 he sought to obtain a contractor licence but was refused on the basis that he was not a fit and proper person to hold a contractor licence. 3. The applicant seeks a review of that decision.