Abdul-Rahman v Department of Finance and Services

reasons for decision 1The Applicant has applied to this Tribunal for a review of a decision made by the Respondent to refuse to issue an individual contractor's licence in the category of general building work under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) (the Act). 2At the hearing the Tribunal was advised that the sole issue for determination by the Tribunal is whether the Applicant meets the experience component required to be satisfied in order for the grant of a licence under the Act as set out in the Instrument dated 13 July 2013 (the Instrument) made pursuant to clause 28(1) of the Home Building Regulation (2004) (NSW). 3For abundant clarity the Respondent advised the Tribunal that it

• accepts the Applicant has the required qualifications specified in the Instrument being a Certificate IV in Building and Construction CPC40108 and the Diploma of Building and Construction CPC50208; and
• no longer presses the grounds of fitness and propriety as previously argued. BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION 4The Applicant is the holder of a qualified supervisor certificate, number 51642S in the categories of Plumber and Roof Plumber, Gasfitter, LP Gasfitter and Drainer. The certificate was first issued on 21 February 2008 and is current until 20 February 2017. 5At various times between 1998 and 2007 the Applicant held other authorities under the Act in the category of plumber, gasfitter and drainer. 6Between 11 November 2005 and 11 November 2013 the Applicant was the nominated supervisor of Lion Plumbing Pty Ltd a company that held a contractor license, number 179710C in the category of plumbing. 7Between 24 June 2009 and 20 October 2010, the Applicant was also the nominated supervisor of BH Plumbing (Aust) Pty Ltd. 8On 13 November 2013, the Applicant made an application (the Application) for the issue of an individual contractor licence in the category of general building work. That application was supported by a Referee Statement provided by Mr Ghazi Sangari dated 10 November 2013. Mr Sangari is the holder of an individual contractor licence in the category of general building work first issued on 22 September 2000 and current until 22 September 2016. 9In that Referee Statement Mr Sangari indicated that the Applicant performed work along the following lines: From 1 September 2012 to 15 October 2013, the Applicant provided assistance to a supervisor on a construction site situated at Glenn Alpine, New South Wales. The day-to-day activities included site supervision, trade management and materials handling. This was a new duplex site with a two story building being constructed with the lower floor being on a sloping site. From 10 November 2010 to 5 December 2011 the Applicant fully supervised the trade, materials handling, OH&S, trade coordination, authority and approvals in respect of a construction situated at a property at Croydon Park NSW. This was a new two-storey home construction. 10In the Referee Statement, Mr Sangari did not indicate the exact nature of the Applicant's engagement with him. 11Following consideration by the Respondent, the Application was refused on 18 February 2014. 12On 21 March 2014, the Applicant requested an internal review of the Determination. 13On 4 June 2014, the Respondent confirmed the earlier Decision to refuse the grant of a licence to the Applicant and on 4 July 2014 the Applicant sought review in this Tribunal. 14On 14 August 2014, the Applicant submitted a further Referee Statement from a Mr Zeitoun in which Mr Zeitoun indicated that the Applicant had worked on a project situated at Burwood NSW continuously from 1 November 2013 up until the present. This project consisted of the construction 38 unit apartments with a basement and the work was done on a daily basis with subcontractors and contractors. The Applicant's role was to organise the subcontractors and prepare construction programs and interact with the architect and engineer. 15The Referee Statement submitted on 14 August 2004 was assessed internally by the Respondent but did not cause the Respondent to be swayed from its original decision. 16In addition further enquiries were made of Mr Sangari in relation to the earlier Referee Statement but again the responses to such enquiries did not cause any change to the Respondent's position.