Sydney AC Pty Ltd v Commissioner for Fair Trading, Department of Finance, Services and Innovation [2019] NSWCATOD 116

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Sydney AC Pty Ltd v Commissioner for Fair Trading, Department of Finance, Services and Innovation [2019] NSWCATOD 116 Hearing dates: 13 June 2019 Date of orders: 23 July 2019 Decision date: 23 July 2019 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: Dr J Lucy, Senior Member Decision: The respondent's decision is affirmed. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – Home building – Where respondent decided not to grant application for renewal of applicant's contractor licence – Where applicant was subject to Tribunal order which had not been satisfied within required period – Where applicant had not complied with order after that period – Meaning of "satisfied" Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) Cases Cited: Kurmond Homes Pty Ltd v Marsden [2018] NSWCATAP 23 Texts Cited: Macquarie Dictionary online Category: Principal judgment Parties: Sydney AC Pty Ltd (Applicant) Commissioner for Fair Trading, Department of Finance, Services and Innovation (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors:

Mr Hesford (Director of Applicant, for the Applicant) Department of Finance, Services and Innovation (Respondent) File Number(s): 2019/00097077 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. The Commissioner for Fair Trading ("the Commissioner") refused an air conditioning company's application for renewal of its contractor licence. The basis of the decision was that the air conditioning company was subject to an order of the Tribunal which had not been satisfied within the required period or afterwards. The Home Building Act 1989 provides that, in these circumstances, a contractor licence may not be issued. 2. The air conditioning company applied for a review of the Commissioner's decision. It said that it was unable to comply with the Tribunal's work order because the home owner did not return its calls or respond to its letters seeking access to the premises. 3. I found that the letters to the home owner were sent to the wrong address and there was no evidence of the company leaving any telephone messages for the home owner. Thus, even if a work order could be "satisfied" in circumstances where a home owner refused the contractor access to his or her premises, the air conditioning company had not satisfied or complied with the work order in this case. 4. For these reasons, I affirmed the Commissioner's decision to refuse to renew the air conditioning company's contractor licence.