Goel v Secretary, Department Of Customer Service

Cases Cited: Asasi Enterprises Pty Ltd v Department of Finance and Services [2014] NSWCATOD 144
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321
Colling v Building Services Corporation (1994) 1 NSWBLR 187
Commissioner of Fair Trading, Office of Finance and Services, NSW Fair Trading v Kassem [2015] NSWCATAP 173
Cosbar Constructions Pty Ltd v Director General, New South Wales Fair Trading [2015] NSWCATOD 67
Director-General, Department of Fair Trading v Cohen [2000] NSWFTT 3
Effective Building & Construction Pty Ltd v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2022] NSWCATOD 180
Goel v The Secretary, Department of Customer Service [2025] NSWCATOD 101
Goel v The Secretary, NSW Department of Customer Service [2026] NSWCATAP 191
Helou v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2003] NSWADT 124
HSL Group Pty Ltd v Commissioner for Fair Trading, Department of Customer Service [2021] NSWCATAP 112
Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No.2) (1955) 93 CLR 127
Kioussis -v- Director General, Department of Fair Trading [2002] NSWADT 2
Secretary, Department of Customer Service v Marino [2025] NSWCATAP 190
Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31
Shoostovian v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2022] NSWCATOD 93
Smith v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force and NSW Fair Trading [2014] NSWCATAD 184
Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board (1979) 20 SASR 70
Youssef v NSW Legal Services Commissioner [2020] NSWCATOD 85

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: Sanjay Goel (Applicant)
Secretary, Department Of Customer Service (Respondent)

Representation: Counsel:
N Case (Respondent)
Applicant (Self Represented)

File Number(s): 2025/00399610

Publication restriction: Nil

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

1. This is an application by Mr Sanjay Goel (“the Applicant”) for review of a 2 October 2025 decision by a delegate of the Secretary, Department Of Customer Service (“the Respondent”) under section 62 of the Home Building Act 1989 (“the Act”). The Respondent made the following determinations:

1. Under section 62(1)(f) of the Act, I cancel the contractor licence;

2. Under section 62(1)(g)(i) of the Act, I disqualify Mr Goel from being the holder of any authority under the Act for a period of six (6) years;

3. Under section 62(1)(g)(ii) of the Act, I disqualify Mr Goel from being a member of a partnership, or an officer of a corporation that is a member of a partnership, that is the holder of any authority for a period of six (6) years; and

4. Under section 62(1)(g)(iii) of the Act, I disqualify Mr Goel from being the officer of a corporation that is the holder of any authority for a period of six (6) years.

2. The Applicant applied for an internal review of the decision to take disciplinary action against him, and he made detailed submissions in support of that application. The internal reviewer determined to affirm the decision to take the above-mentioned disciplinary action under section 62 of the Act.

Background

3. There is no dispute in relation to the background related to the Applicant’s licence. The internal reviewer noted the following:

4. a contractor licence was issued in the category of builder to the Applicant on 5 July 2017;

5. a contractor licence was issued in the category of builder to Pacific lmpexp Services Pty Ltd (“Pacific”) on 11 August 2017;

6. the Applicant was listed as sole company director and nominated supervisor for Pacific;

7. an owner-builder permit was issued to the Applicant on 30 September 2020 for a residential dwelling at Lithgow (“Property 40A and Property 40B”).

8. the Applicant was issued Notices to Show Cause (“NTSC”) under section 61 of the Act in August 2024, June 2025 and August 2025. The NTSC invited the Applicant to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against him on the grounds specified in the NTSC.

9. the Applicant provided written submissions in response to the respective NTSC in September 2024, June 2025 and August 2025.

10. Pacific’s contractor licence was cancelled on 19 March 2025.

11. the Applicant’s contractor licence was cancelled on 2 October 2025;

12. The NTSC dated 29 August 2024 stated:

In my capacity as a delegate of the Secretary, I have formed the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that there are two (2) grounds for taking disciplinary action against the Authority Holder under the Act, namely:

DISCIPLINARY GROUND 1: under section 56(c) of the Act — that the holder of a contractor licence is guilty of improper conduct; and

DISCIPLINARY GROUND 2: under section 56(b) of the Act — that the holder of a contractor licence is not a fit and proper person to hold the licence.

5. The Applicant provided submissions in response to the NTSC. The decision-maker summarised those submissions in the reasons for the decision. At paragraph [77] the decision-maker set out the findings in relation to Disciplinary Ground 1:

Disciplinary Ground 1 Findings

77. Based on the paragraphs above and after considering the Authority Holder's Submissions, I make the following findings:

77.1. the Authority Holder breached the following sections:

77.1.1. the statutory warranty under section 18B(1)(a) of the Act on two (2) separate occasions, in that he caused or permitted works to be carried out at Property 40A and Property 40B without due care and skill;

77.1.2. section 95(2) of the Act on two (2) separate occasions, in that he entered into the Property 40A Sale Contract and Property 40B Sale Contract, both of which did not include a consumer warning in circumstances where such a warning was required;

77.1.3. section 12(b) of the Act, in that he carried out RBW beyond the scope authorised under the Permit; and

77.1.4. section 307A of the Crimes Act in that he knew, or was reckless as to whether a statement made in his Application was false or misleading;

77.1.5. sections 92(1)(a), 92(1)(b), 92(2)(a) and 92(2)(b) of the Act by virtue of section 134 of the Act, in that he was knowingly concerned in EME and FM Electrics' having committed offences against those sections of the Act;

77.1.6. section 127(4)(a) of the Act, in that the Authority Holder failed to comply with a notice issued to him under section 127(2)(b) of the Act;

77.2. in light of the preceding paragraph, the Authority Holder is guilty of improper conduct under:

77.2.1. section 51(1)(c) with respect to the paragraph [77.1.1] above; and 77.2.2; section 51(1)(a) of the Act with respect to paragraphs [77.1.2], [77.1.3], [77.1.4], [77.1.5] and [77.1.6] above.

78. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the ground for taking disciplinary action against the Authority Holder under section 56(c) of the Act is established.

79. I am therefore satisfied that Disciplinary Ground 1 is established.

6. The decision-maker set out the findings in relation to Disciplinary Ground 2 from paragraph [94]:

Character, honesty, moral integrity and rectitude

94. I consider that the conduct outlined in Disciplinary Ground 1 and summarised in paragraph [77] above is improper conduct for the purposes of determining whether the Authority Holder is fit and proper to hold an authority under the Act because it indicates the Authority Holder may not possess the requisite character, honesty and moral integrity and rectitude to be accredited to the public as a person entrusted to oversee or carry out the work authorised by the Contract Licence, namely as it is indicative that the Authority Holder:

94.1. is prepared to make an application to a public authority and make, or be reckless as to whether he has made, a false or misleading statement, which shows a disregard for the Authority Holder's obligations and the regulatory scheme in which he operates;

94.2. demonstrated a lack of regard for the rights of consumers who are entitled to expect that the Authority Holder will ensure to make all appropriate disclosures, particularly those he is statutorily obligated to make, in order to allow them to make an informed decision regarding a property purchase;

94.3. is prepared to operate and carry out works outside the parameters of the authority granted to him in order to protect his financial interests, which shows a lack of regard for statutory authorisation;

94.4. willingness to adopt conflicting positions in a self-serving manner, raising concerns about the reliability and transparency of his representations particularly when subject to regulatory oversight. This is evidenced by the Authority Holder's submissions under Disciplinary Ground 2, where he claimed that the work carried out beyond the Permit's scope was not technically carried out unlicensed, as he holds a contractor licence. However, this contradicts his submissions under Disciplinary Ground 1, where he asserted that he did not carry out the work at all, claiming it was subcontracted and that he acted solely in a supervisory capacity;

94.5. failed to ensure the contract he entered into complied with mandatory statutory obligations, including fundamental insurance and contract form obligations; and

94.6. was wilfully blind to whether subcontractors engaged for RBW had obtained the insurance required under the Act, and permitted uninsured work to proceed, showing a disregard for fundamental consumer protections.

...

98. However, the improper conduct set out under Disciplinary Ground 1 indicates that the Authority Holder does not have the requisite knowledge and ability to carry out or oversee the activities authorised by the contractor licence because:

98.1. he failed to ensure that a certificate of insurance evidencing a contract of insurance was obtained in accordance with section 92(1)(b) of the Act and provided in accordance with section 92(2)(b) of the Act, which demonstrates a lack of understanding for fundamental requirements pertaining to RBW under the Act, which a contractor licence holder with the requisite knowledge and ability would have known to comply with; and

98.2. he caused or permitted works to be carried out contrary to the requirements under the Act, which resulted in:

98.2.1. a Tribunal order in the amount of $3,740.00 to Ms Mittal for the works at Property 40A in addition to the $14,165.00 that the parties had compromised on in relation to a number of claims; and

98.2.2. a Tribunal order in the amount of $95,991.93 to Ms Davies for the works at Property 40B.

99. Based on paragraphs [90] to [98] above, I have formed the opinion that the Authority Holder is not a fit and proper person to hold a contractor licence under the Act.

100. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the ground for taking disciplinary action against the Authority Holder under section 56(b) of the Act is established.

101. I am therefore satisfied that Disciplinary Ground 2 is established.

7. The disciplinary decision determined that the Applicant was guilty of improper conduct under section 51(1)(c) of the Act because on two separate occasions he had caused or permitted works to be carried out at residential dwellings at Lithgow without due care and skill. The decision-maker also determined that the Applicant was guilty of improper conduct on two separate occasions because:

8. he entered into sales contracts for the subject properties when neither contract included a consumer warning in circumstances where such a warning was required;

9. he carried out residential building work beyond the scope of an owner-builder permit;

10. he knew, or was reckless as to whether, a statement made in the permit application was false or misleading;

11. he was knowingly concerned in the commission of offences against a number of sections of the Act;

12. he failed to comply with a notice issued to him under section 127(2)(b) of the Act.

13. As noted, the decision was made to cancel the Applicant’s contractor licence and to impose disqualifications under sections 62(1)(f) and 62(1)(g)(i)—(iii) of the Act.

The Internal Review Decision

9. The Applicant sought an internal review of the decision. The internal reviewer made the findings as set out above and determined to affirm the original decision. The reviewer concluded:

[T]he decision that Mr Goel is guilty of improper conduct under the HBA, establishing a ground under section 56(c) of the HBA on which disciplinary action may be taken against him is accepted.

…

[T]he decision that Sanjay Goel is not a fit and proper person to hold a contractor licence under the HBA, establishing a ground under section 56(b) of the HBA on which disciplinary action may be taken against him, is accepted.

…

In my view, the disciplinary decision reflects a determination following the assessment of the specific conduct of Mr Goel and the impact of that conduct on the public, and the action available to be taken under the HBA in the context of the current regulatory framework administered by Building Commission NSW for the residential building industry.

As stated, the HBA allows for a range of potential disciplinary penalties to be imposed ranging from taking no further action to the permanent disqualification of a person. Considering the information provided in relation to the disciplinary decision and internal review, I conclude the disciplinary action taken against Mr Goel is proportionate and appropriate. The disciplinary outcome serves as a warning to other authority holders that disregard of the legislation is unacceptable, and the consequences of doing so are significant.

10. The Respondent has also taken action against Pacific. In its reasons for the decision to cancel Pacific’s licence the decision-maker stated:

On the 23 September 2020, Mr Goel lodged an online owner-builder permit application ... Mr Goel listed the type of construction on the permit application as ‘single dwelling’ and indicated that you would be living at the address upon the building work being completed. Mr Goel also indicated on the owner-builder application that the property was not part of a multi-dwelling strata complex.

A review was conducted for the construction of the duplex … which found Mr Goel provided false and misleading information to NSW Fair Trading:

• Mr Goel applied for a development of a ‘dual occupancy dwelling’ … to Council authorities and your application was approved for a dual occupancy dwelling.

• Mr Goel applied for an owner-builder permit, and you listed the type of construction on the permit application as ‘single dwelling’ … and indicated that he would be living at the address upon the building work being completed. Mr Goel also indicated on the owner-builder application that the property was not part of a multi-dwelling strata complex. The owner-builder permit was approved for a ‘single dwelling’.

• Mr Goel built a duplex … under an owner-builder permit where you stated in the owner-builder permit application that the construction was for a ‘single dwelling’.

• Based on the information above, Mr Goel provided false or misleading applications to NSW Fair Trading regarding developments that you were building and the reasons behind their development.

• … both properties, were sold prior to completion. Mr Goel never resided in either one of the properties and a strata management plan/statement was included in the contract of sale. The inclusion of the strata management plan directly contradicts the owner-builder permit application.

• Mr Goel did not take out Home Building Compensation Fund Insurance as required to the purchasers of the properties.

…

Mr Goel was subject to two (2) NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) orders as a result of the construction and defects …

• On 27 June 2023, NCAT HB22/33320, money order was issued to Mr Goel in the amount of $17,905.00 due on 22 June 2023, which you failed to comply with the order by the due date.

• On 17 October 2023, NCAT HB 22/46624 money orders issued to Mr Goel in the amount of $95,992.00 which you failed to comply with the order by the due date.

•

Subsequently, due to failing to comply to the NCAT orders by the due date set out by the tribunal licence 311604C in the name of Sanjay Goel was suspended on 12 February 2024 and licence suspension lifted on 03 April 2024 once the orders were complied with.

It is noted that Mr Goel breached statutory warranties by failing to complete work with due care and skill. This is evident with the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) ordering you to pay both purchasers of the duplex, ...

The defect reports provided outlining the following:

“The overall condition of the areas inspected in the context of its age, type and general expectations or similar properties is below average. The building and its parts show some significant defects and/or very poor non-tradesmen like workmanship and/or long-term neglect and/or defects requiring major repairs or reconstruction of major building elements.”

...

Mr Goel issued a Waterproofing Certificate to Lithgow City Council which misrepresented that the company ‘Auss Water Proofing & Tiling Group Pty Ltd’ is the holder of a contractor licence. The contractor licence printed on the certificate belongs to Pacific Impexp Services Pty Ltd and the ABN number printed on the certificate belongs to Sanjay Goel as an individual/sole trader. You produced this certificate to facilitate the issuing of an Occupation Certificate with Lithgow City Council.

I have considered the information Mr Goel provided on 4 February 2025, however Mr Goel has not provided a satisfactory response or sufficient reasons to prevent cancellation of the licence, where Mr Goel has in contrary stated:

“Regarding the waterproofing certificate, I had no viable alternative but to arrange for it under the given circumstances, as detailed in section 4.5 of my internal review submissions. Importantly, this action resulted in no personal gain, did not disadvantage any party, and, most critically, the work associated with the certificate was properly executed, inspected and certified by the council”

11. The Applicant has also held builder licences in the ACT and Tasmania. In April 2026, the ACT Construction Occupations Registrar issued a Notice of Licence Cancellation cancelling the Applicant's ACT Builder (Class A) Licence and disqualifying the Applicant from holding an ACT builder licence until October 2031.

Issue for Determination

12. The issues for determination are whether the correct and preferable decision is to take disciplinary action in relation to the Applicant and, if so, what action should be taken. This requires consideration of whether the Applicant is guilty of improper conduct under the Act and whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a contractor licence under the Act.

Applicable legislation

13. The Act is part of the legislative scheme which regulates aspects of the home building industry in New South Wales. The scheme is concerned to provide consumer protection including, regulating the issue, cancellation and suspension of contractor licences, supervisors' certificates and trades persons' certificates in the industry: Commissioner of Fair Trading, Office of Finance and Services, NSW Fair Trading v Kassem [2015] NSWCATAP 173 at paragraphs [9] and [10].

14. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the Respondent's decision under the Act, section 9 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) (“the ADR Act”) and section 30 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).

15. Section 9 of the ADR Act provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction in regard to an application for review of a decision of an administrator if enabling legislation provides that applications may be made to the Tribunal for administrative review.

16. The Tribunal has jurisdiction in regard to a number of licensing issues. Section 83B of the Act provides:

83B Administrative reviews by Tribunal

…

(3) A person aggrieved—

(a) by a decision made by the Secretary under Part 4 (Disciplinary proceedings) to impose a penalty or to cancel or suspend an authority, or

(b) by any other decision made by the Secretary under that Part that is prescribed by the Regulations,

may apply to the Tribunal for an administrative review under the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 of that decision.

17. Section 63 of the ADR Act provides that in determining an application, the Tribunal is to determine the "correct and preferable decision" having regard to the material before it. In reaching the correct and preferable decision, the Tribunal may:

18. exercise all of the functions that are conferred or imposed by the Act on the Respondent; and

19. affirm the decision, vary the decision, set aside the decision, and make a decision in substitution of the decision, or set aside the decision and remit the matter for reconsideration by the Respondent.

20. There is no formal onus of proof. In considering the Application, the Tribunal may have regard to any relevant material before it at the time of its review. Its consideration is not limited to material that was before the Respondent at the time it made the decision which is under review, or material that had not been provided to the Respondent.

21. The nature of a review under section 63 of the ADR Act was considered in Youssef v NSW Legal Services Commissioner [2020] NSWCATOD 85 in which the Tribunal emphasised that a review under section 63 is a merits review and noted at paragraph [23] that the Tribunal is:

"not concerned … whether there was challengeable error in the process or reasoning" by the original decision-maker. Rather, the role of the Tribunal is to "decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material before it", which includes "any relevant factual material".

20. The Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Respondent and has the same powers as the Respondent for the purposes of this review. The Tribunal is to make its own decision and there is no presumption that the Respondent's decision is correct. The Tribunal should consider all relevant material and ignore all irrelevant material.

21. The Act is a consumer protection law. In Secretary, Department of Customer Service v Marino [2025] NSWCATAP 190, the Tribunal’s Appeal Panel observed at paragraphs [71]–[72]:

71. We agree with the appellant that the Home Building Act is both protective (see Dinh v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2016] NSWCATOD 72 at [54]) and remedial legislation designed to regulate the building industry ...

72. Beneficial and remedial legislation like the Home Building Act is to be given a “fair, large and liberal” interpretation rather than one which is literal or technical. However, the task is one of statutory construction and a court or Tribunal is not at liberty to give it a construction that is “unreasonable or unnatural”: see IW v City of Perth [1997] HCA 30; (1997) 191 CLR 1. As was stated by the Appeal Panel in Yong v Antworks Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATAP 14 at [83]:

The principles of statutory construction are well settled. The task of statutory interpretation must begin with a consideration of the text itself. The starting point is to consider the ordinary and grammatical sense of the statutory words to be interpreted having regard to their context and legislative purpose: Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue [2009] HCA 41; (2009) 239 CLR 27, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel JJ, [47].

22. The object of sanctions under the Act is to protect the public and not to punish. The concept of public protection is wide; it embraces fitness, the maintenance of standards, public confidence and deterrence of both the particular builder and others in the same occupation: Colling v Building Services Corporation (1994) 1 NSWBLR 187 at 193.

23. An “authority” is defined in Schedule 1 of the Act to mean:

(a) a contractor licence (whether or not an endorsed contractor licence),

(b) a supervisor or tradesperson certificate,

(c) an owner-builder permit.

24. Section 33A of the Act provides for disqualification:

33A Disqualification from holding authorities

(1) A person is disqualified from holding an authority (other than an owner-builder permit) if the person—

(a) has been convicted in New South Wales or elsewhere of an offence involving dishonesty within the last 10 years, unless the Secretary has determined under subsection (2) that the offence should be ignored, or

(b) has been convicted within the last 5 years of an offence under section 46A (Lending of authority prohibited), unless the Secretary has determined under subsection (2) that the offence should be ignored, or

(c) is disqualified from holding a licence, certificate of registration or other authority under a corresponding law or is the holder of such a licence, certificate of registration or other authority that is suspended, or

(d) is the holder of a licence, permit or other authority that is suspended under legislation administered by the Minister or is disqualified from holding a licence, permit or other authority under legislation administered by the Minister, unless the Secretary has determined under subsection (3) that the suspension or disqualification should be ignored, or

(e) is in partnership with a person who is, or is a director of a body corporate that is, disqualified from holding an authority under this Act, or

(f) is for the time being declared to be a person who is disqualified from holding an authority under Part 4 (Disciplinary proceedings), or

(g) has failed to pay any monetary penalty payable by the person under Part 4 (Disciplinary proceedings) or has failed to comply with a condition imposed under section 62(d), and the failure continues, or

(h) is in breach of any provision of this Act or the Regulations that is prescribed by the Regulations as a disqualifying breach.

(1A) The Secretary may determine that an individual, or a body corporate or partnership with which the individual is associated, is disqualified from holding an authority, other than an owner-builder permit, if satisfied that the individual has previously engaged in conduct that led to a disqualification of another person.

(1B) The Secretary may determine that an individual, or a body corporate with which an individual is associated, is disqualified from holding an authority, other than an owner-builder permit, if satisfied the individual was a director or a person concerned in the management of a body corporate—

(a) when the body corporate, or a director of the body corporate, was convicted of an offence under the Corporations Act 2001 of the Commonwealth, or

(b) within 6 months before the conduct that was the subject of the offence occurred, or

(c) when the body corporate became a Chapter 5 body corporate or within 6 months before that event.

(1C) The Secretary may determine that an individual who is a partner in a partnership is disqualified from holding an authority, other than an owner-builder permit, if satisfied another partner in the partnership has become bankrupt, applied to take the benefit of a law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors, compounded with the partner’s creditors or made an assignment of the partner’s remuneration for the creditors’ benefit.

(1D) The Secretary may disqualify a person from holding an authority under subsections (1A)–(1C) permanently or for a specified period of time.

(2) The Secretary may determine that an offence committed by a person should be ignored for the purposes of this section because of the time that has passed since the offence was committed or because of the triviality of the acts or omissions giving rise to the offence.

(3) The Secretary may, in any case that the Secretary thinks it appropriate to do so, determine that a suspension or disqualification from holding a licence, permit or other authority under legislation administered by the Minister (as referred to in subsection (1)(d)) is to be ignored for the purposes of this section.

(4) In this section —

corresponding law means a law of another Australian jurisdiction that is prescribed by the Regulations as a law that corresponds to this Act.

25. Section 51(2) of the Act provides that:

51 Improper conduct: generally

…

(2) The holder of a contractor licence is guilty of improper conduct if the holder—

(a) without reasonable cause, breaches a contract to do any work that the contractor licence authorises the holder to contract to do, or

(b) without reasonable cause, does not comply with the requirements of a rectification order under Part 3A, Division 2 or Part 3B before the date specified in the order, or

(c) does not comply with an order of the Tribunal or with an order of a court in respect of a building claim as referred to in Part 3A, or

...

26. There was no dispute that at all relevant times Pacific and the Applicant each held a “contractor licence”. Consequently, each held an “authority” under the Act. Each was authorised to contract to do residential building work. At all relevant times the Applicant was the sole director of Pacific.

27. If the evidence established that there was a ground on which disciplinary action may be taken, each could be subject to disciplinary action under the Act. Section 56(c) of the Act allows the Respondent to take disciplinary action if a licence holder is guilty of improper conduct.

28. Section 51 of the Act relevantly sets out what constitutes improper conduct in general. This includes committing an offence against the Act or the Regulations. Section 51 relevantly provides:

51 Improper conduct: generally

(1) A holder of a contractor licence who is authorised by the contractor licence to contract to do residential building work or specialist work, or a holder of a supervisor or tradesperson certificate, is guilty of improper conduct if the holder—

(a) commits an offence against this Act or the Regulations or section 307A or 307B of the Crimes Act 1900, whether or not an information has been laid for the offence, or

(b) in the course of doing any work that the licence or certificate authorises the holder to do, fails to comply with the requirements applicable to the work made by or under this or any other Act in respect of the work, or

(c) breaches a statutory warranty, or

(d) in the case of specialist work, does the work otherwise than with due care and skill or knowingly uses faulty or unsuitable materials in the course of doing the work, or

(e) becomes a person who is disqualified by this Act or the Regulations from holding the licence or certificate, or

(f) commits an offence under the Plumbing and Drainage Act 2011 or the Regulations under that Act, whether or not the holder has been convicted of the offence, or

(g) contravenes a requirement imposed by or under the Building Products (Safety) Act 2017, whether or not the holder is convicted of an offence in respect of that contravention.

(1A) (Repealed)

(2) The holder of a contractor licence is guilty of improper conduct if the holder—

(a) without reasonable cause, breaches a contract to do any work that the contractor licence authorises the holder to contract to do, or

(b) without reasonable cause, does not comply with the requirements of a rectification order under Part 3A, Division 2 or Part 3B before the date specified in the order, or

(c) does not comply with an order of the Tribunal or with an order of a court in respect of a building claim as referred to in Part 3A, or

(d) employs a person or engages a person under a contract for services knowing the person is disqualified from holding a contractor licence, has had an application for an authority refused on a ground relating to the person’s character, honesty or integrity or has had an authority cancelled or suspended on a disciplinary ground, or

(e) commits fraud or makes any misrepresentation in connection with any contract authorised by the contractor licence or any contract for the sale of any dwelling, structure or work that has resulted from, or been affected by, any work done under the authority of the contractor licence, or

(f) is convicted of any offence under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 or the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 or any Regulations made under either of those Acts.

(2A) (Repealed)

(3) It is a sufficient defence to a complaint that the holder of a contractor licence has been guilty of improper conduct as referred to in subsection (1)(b), (c) or (d) in connection with work undertaken by the holder, if the holder proves to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the holder did all that could reasonably be required to ensure that a nominated supervisor for that work would exercise such degree of control over the doing of the work as would be necessary to prevent the occurrence of the improper conduct.

(4) It is a sufficient defence to a complaint that the holder of a contractor licence has been guilty of improper conduct as referred to in subsection (2)(d) if, before employing or engaging the person concerned, the holder obtained the approval of the Secretary to the employment or engagement of the person.

29. Section 53 of the Act applies specifically to improper conduct by nominated supervisors. It states:

53 Improper conduct: nominated supervisors

(1) The holder of an endorsed contractor licence or a supervisor certificate who has control over the carrying out of residential building work or specialist work of any kind is guilty of improper conduct if—

(a) the requirements applicable to the work made by or under this Act or any other Act are not complied with, or

(b) a breach of a statutory warranty occurs in the course of doing that work, or

(c) in the case of specialist work, the work is done otherwise than with due care and skill or faulty or unsuitable materials are used in the course of doing the work.

(2) The holder of an endorsed contractor licence or a supervisor certificate is to be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have control over the doing of all work for which the holder is a nominated supervisor.

(3) It is a sufficient defence to a complaint that a holder has been guilty of improper conduct under this section if the holder proves to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the holder used all due diligence to prevent the occurrence of the improper conduct.

30. The Applicant was a director of Pacific at all relevant times. Pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Act, an “officer” of a company is defined to include a director of the company. Section 54 of the Act imputes improper conduct by a company to officers of the company. Section 54 states:

54 Improper conduct: members of partnerships or officers of corporations

(1) An individual who is a member of a partnership or an officer of a corporation that is the holder of a contractor licence is guilty of improper conduct if the holder does any of the things referred to in section 51 or 52.

(2) The reference in subsection (1) to an individual who is a member of a partnership includes a reference to an individual who is an officer of a corporation that is a member of a partnership.

(3) It is a sufficient defence to a complaint that an individual who is a member of a partnership, an officer of a corporation that is a member of a partnership or a director of a corporation (being a partnership or corporation that is the holder of a contractor licence) has been guilty of improper conduct if the individual proves to the satisfaction of the Secretary that—

(a) the improper conduct occurred without the individual’s knowledge, or

(b) the individual was not in a position to influence the conduct of the other members of the partnership or other officers of the corporation, of which the individual was a member or an officer, so as to prevent the occurrence of the improper conduct, or

(c) the individual, being in such a position, used all due diligence to prevent the occurrence of the improper conduct.

31. The Respondent contends that the Applicant knew or was reckless as to whether a statement made in his application for an owner-builder permit was false or misleading. Sections 307A and 307B of the Crimes Act 1900 state:

307A False or misleading applications

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) the person makes a statement (whether orally, in a document or in any other way), and

(b) the person does so knowing that, or being reckless as to whether, the statement—

(i) is false or misleading, or

(ii) omits any matter or thing without which the statement is misleading, and

(c) the statement is made in connection with an application for an authority or benefit, and

(d) any of the following subparagraphs apply—

(i) the statement is made to a public authority,

(ii) the statement is made to a person who is exercising or performing any power, authority, duty or function under, or in connection with, a law of the State,

(iii) the statement is made in compliance or purported compliance with a law of the State.

Maximum penalty—Imprisonment for 2 years, or a fine of 200 penalty units, or both.

...

(5) In this section—

application includes any claim, request or other form of application and also includes, in the case of an application for an authority, any application for the issue, grant, amendment, transfer, renewal, restoration or replacement of the authority and any other application in connection with the authority.

authority includes any licence, permit, consent, approval, registration or other form of authority.

benefit includes any advantage and is not limited to property.

307B False or misleading information

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) the person gives information to another person, and

(b) the person does so knowing that the information—

(i) is false or misleading, or

(ii) omits any matter or thing without which the information is misleading, and

(c) any of the following subparagraphs apply—

(i) the information is given to a public authority,

(ii) the information is given to a person who is exercising or performing any power, authority, duty or function under, or in connection with, a law of the State,

(iii) the information is given in compliance or purported compliance with a law of the State.

…

32. Section 56 of the Act sets out various grounds for taking disciplinary action against the holder of a contractor licence. It states:

56 Grounds for taking disciplinary action against holder of a contractor licence

The Secretary may take disciplinary action under section 62 against the holder of a contractor licence on any of the following grounds—

(a) that the holder is not entitled to hold the contractor licence,

(b) that the holder is not a fit and proper person to hold the contractor licence,

(c) that the holder is guilty of improper conduct,

…

33. Section 57 of the Act sets out grounds for taking disciplinary action against the holder of a supervisor certificate. It provides:

57 Grounds for taking disciplinary action against holder of a supervisor or tradesperson certificate

The Secretary may take disciplinary action under section 62 against the holder of a supervisor or tradesperson certificate on any of the following grounds—

(a) that the holder is not entitled to hold the certificate,

(b) that the holder is not a fit and proper person to hold the certificate,

(c) that the holder is guilty of improper conduct,

(d) that the holder is not capable of doing all or part of the work that the certificate authorises the holder to do,

(e) that the holder has failed to comply with a condition of the certificate imposed by a determination under this Part,

(f) that the certificate was improperly obtained,

(g) that the Secretary has become aware of information about the holder that, if known at the time the application for the certificate was determined, would have been grounds for refusing the application,

(h) that the holder has contravened an undertaking accepted by the Secretary under section 115A.

34. Section 62 of the Act allows the Respondent to take certain disciplinary action against the holder of an “authority”, if any ground on which disciplinary action may be taken has been established. Section 62 provides:

“62 Disciplinary action that may be taken by Secretary

(1) If, after compliance with this Division, the Secretary is satisfied that any ground on which disciplinary action may be taken against the holder of an authority has been established in relation to the holder, the Secretary may do any one or more of the following—

(a) determine to take no further action against the holder,

(b) caution or reprimand the holder,

(c) make a determination requiring the holder to pay to the Secretary, as a penalty, an amount not exceeding $11,000 (in the case of an individual) or $50,000 (in the case of a corporation) within a specified time,

(d) vary the authority held by the holder, by imposing a condition on the authority, including a condition requiring the holder to undertake a course of training relating to a particular type of work or business practice within a specified time,

(e) suspend the authority for a period not exceeding its unexpired term,

(f) cancel the authority,

(g) disqualify the holder, either temporarily or permanently, from being any one or more of the following—

(i) the holder of any authority, or any specified kind of authority,

(ii) a member of a partnership, or an officer of a corporation that is a member of a partnership, that is the holder of an authority,

(iii) an officer of a corporation that is the holder of an authority.

...

35. Section 95(2) of the Act provides:

95 No insurance for owner-builder work

(1) A contract of insurance under this Part cannot be entered into in relation to owner-builder work carried out or to be carried out by a person as an owner-builder.

Note.

Insurance under this Part cannot be offered or obtained for owner-builder work done by an owner-builder. This does not affect the requirement of section 92 for insurance to be obtained for owner-builder work done under a contract.

(2) A person who is the owner of land in relation to which an owner-builder permit was issued must not enter into a contract for the sale of the land unless the contract includes a conspicuous note (a consumer warning) stating—

(a) that an owner-builder permit was issued in relation to the land (specifying the date on which it was issued), and

(b) work done under an owner-builder permit is not required to be insured under this Act unless the work was done by a contractor to the owner-builder.

Maximum penalty—1,000 penalty units in the case of a corporation and 200 penalty units in any other case.

Fitness and Propriety

36. The expression “fit and proper person” is not defined in the Act. However, section 20(a) of the Act provides that the Secretary must refuse an application for a contractor licence if the Secretary is not satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a contractor licence. Further, section 20(1A) of the Act provides that in determining whether an applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence, the Secretary is to consider whether the applicant is of “good repute, having regard to character, honesty and integrity”.

37. Section 22(1)(h) of the Act provides that the Secretary must cancel a contractor licence if the Secretary would be required to refuse an application for a contractor licence by the person.

38. Under section 56(b) of the Act disciplinary action may be taken against the holder of a contractor licence on the ground that the holder is not a fit and proper person to hold the contractor licence. It is well established that in considering an application for review the Tribunal is not restricted to a consideration of the material that was before the decision-maker but may have regard to any relevant material before it at the time of the review.

39. The apparent purpose of section 20(a) of the Act is to ensure that only fit and proper persons of integrity and competence may hold a contractor licence. Matters which cast light upon the presence or absence of the necessary characteristics may be taken into account: Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31 at paragraph [149]. This consideration is not limited to breaches of the Act.

40. The expression ‘fit and proper’ has been considered by this Tribunal and in other jurisdictions in numerous cases. It is generally accepted that fitness and propriety need to be determined by reference to the activities in issue and is to be gauged in light of the nature and purpose of the activities that the person will undertake. In Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321, 380, Toohey and Gaudron JJ explained that:

The expression “fit and proper person”, standing alone, carries no precise meaning. It takes its meaning from its context, from the activities in which the person is or will be engaged and the ends to be served by those activities. The concept of “fit and proper” cannot be entirely divorced from the conduct of the person who is or will be engaging in those activities. However, depending on the nature of the activities, the question may be whether improper conduct has occurred, or whether it is likely to occur, whether it can be assumed that it will not occur, or whether the general community will have confidence that it will not occur. The list is not exhaustive, but it does indicate that, in certain contexts, character (because it provides indication of likely future conduct) or reputation (because it provides indication of public perception as to likely future conduct) may be sufficient to ground a finding that a person is not fit and proper to undertake the activities in question.

41. In Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No.2) (1955) 93 CLR 127 at 156-7 the High Court said that fitness and propriety involve three things, honesty, knowledge and ability. In Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board (1979) 20 SASR 70 Walters J said:

In my opinion what is meant by that expression is that the Applicant must show not only that he is possessed of a requisite knowledge of the duties and responsibilities evolving upon him as the holder of a particular licence ... but also that he is possessed of sufficient moral integrity and rectitude of character as to permit him to be safely accredited to the public ... as a person to be entrusted with the sort of work which the licence entails.

42. The question of fitness and propriety is to be determined objectively, taking into account all the evidence: Smith v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force and NSW Fair Trading [2014] NSWCATAD 184.

Material before the Tribunal

43. A significant amount of material has been lodged by the parties in this matter. The Respondent relies on several volumes of documents comprising some 1500 pages filed pursuant to section 58 of the ADR Act (“the section 58 material”). The Respondent also provided a chronology and aide-memoire which was cross-referenced to the section 58 material. The Respondent also filed written submissions. Those submissions have been supplemented with written submissions with oral submissions following the hearing.

44. The Respondent also relies on findings by Senior Member Little in Goel v The Secretary, Department of Customer Service [2025] NSWCATOD 101 (“Goel No. 1”).

45. The Applicant relies on his own evidence. He provided detailed written submissions dated 29 January 2026, reply submissions dated 20 March 2026, opening submissions dated 31 March 2026, supplementary submissions, and further supplementary submissions. He attended the hearing, gave evidence and was cross-examined. He also supplemented his written submissions with oral submissions following the hearing. He also filed a significant amount of additional material after the hearing. Much of that material was unsolicited and is not relevant to the matters in issue.

46. The Applicant also relies on character references from Nikhil Jain, Founder and Director of Digital Minds Group, Manish Aggarwal, Director of Perfume Network of Australia, and Amandeep Singh Sidhu Nominee Supervisor with Skymark Luxury Living Pty Ltd.

47. The Applicant also made submissions opposing the Respondent’s reliance on the Goel No. 1 as that decision was under appeal. That Appeal has now been determined, and the Appeal Panel affirmed the decision in the Goel No. 1: Goel v The Secretary, NSW Department of Customer Service [2026] NSWCATAP 191 (“the Goel appeal decision”).

The Respondent’s Case

48. The Respondent relies on material that is before the Tribunal as well as a number of concessions that the Applicant has made in relation to the construction of residences on his Lithgow property.

Disciplinary action jurisdiction

49. The Respondent therefore concedes that the disciplinary action taken by the Respondent in relation to the Applicant's contractor licence was not in relation to home building work done under that authority but under the authority of an owner-builder permit. However, the Respondent does not accept the Applicant’s contention that it lacked the power to take action against his contractor licence because the conduct in issue related to work carried out under an owner-builder permit.

50. The Respondent noted that at all relevant times, the Applicant held an "authority" for the purposes of the relevant provisions of Act. It is common ground that despite the fact that he held a contractor licence, he applied for and was granted an owner-builder permit for the construction of a single dwelling on his Lithgow property. He built a two-dwelling dual occupancy pursuant to the owner-builder permit.

51. The Respondent contends that the Applicant remains liable for disciplinary action on the basis of his dishonest conduct in obtaining the permit and by creating a false waterproofing certificate and submitting it to the Lithgow City Council. The Respondent contends that this conduct demonstrates that the Applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a contractor licence, which is a proper ground on which to take disciplinary action.

The scope of the owner-builder permit

52. In 2017 the Applicant was granted development consent for his property at Lithgow. The application shows that the Applicant intended a strata subdivision of the property and proposed a duplex development. In 2020 he applied for an owner-builder permit for the construction of a single dwelling on the property. However, he constructed a duplex on the property. Work began in November 2020, and the residences were at lock-up stage by June or July 2021. At about that time the Applicant advertised both residences for sale.

53. The Respondent contends that the Applicant has agreed that by April - May 2021 he intended to build both residences despite knowing that the owner-builder permit did not authorise him to do so. He also agreed that by August 2021 he knew he was not going to live in the residences. He did not notify the Respondent of his changed intentions, including exceeding the authority of the permit.

54. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant gave conflicting evidence about the reason for his initial intention to build only one residence of a dual occupancy and did not provide corroborating documentary evidence for any of the reasons he had given for his changed intentions.

55. The Respondent does not accept the Applicant’s contention that it might be estopped from taking action against him. The Respondent submitted that estoppel does not apply against public authorities generally.

A false certificate

56. The Respondent submitted that in about September 2021 the Applicant signed a certificate and warranty on the letterhead of Auss Water Proofing and Tiling Group Pty Ltd. The Applicant provided the certificate to the Lithgow City Council as proof that the waterproofing for the development had been certified and in support of an application for an occupation certificate. An occupation certificate was necessary for the sale of the residences.

57. The Applicant signed the certificate as director of Auss Water Proofing & Tiling when he was not a director of that company. He cited Pacific's Licence number and a false ABN.

58. The Respondent submitted that Lithgow City Council relied on the false certificate that the Applicant had provided. The certificate falsely asserted that Auss Water Proofing & Tiling had carried out the relevant waterproofing works at the property to the relevant standards when in fact Auss Water Proofing & tiling had not carried out the relevant waterproofing works.

59. Lithgow City Council issued an occupation certificate for the development in November 2021. Construction was completed in November or December 2021.

Tribunal decisions

60. The Respondent relies on two decisions in the Tribunal’s Commercial Division that involved the purchasers of 40A and 40B. Those decisions related to consumer claims for defective works against the Applicant by each of the purchasers of the two residences. Those decisions are before the Tribunal and reference is made above to the orders made in those matters. The Respondent also relies on the decision in Goel No. 1. The Respondent notes that in Goel No. 1 at paragraph [62] Senior Member Little stated:

62 The certificate was an act of deception. It was false. It was motivated by the ulterior motive of the Applicant to obtain an occupation certificate and to obtain an advantage unfairly in the absence of a legitimate waterproofing certification. ...

Misleading statements or omissions

61. The Respondent alleged that the Applicant made a false or misleading statement when he applied for an owner-builder permit and indicated that he was only building a single dwelling. The Respondent noted that under section 307A of the Crimes Act it is an offence to make a false or misleading statement in, or a misleading omission from an application for an owner-builder permit. Section 51(1)(a) of the Act provides that a contractor licence holder is guilty of improper conduct if they commit an offence under sections 307A or 307B of the Crimes Act.

62. The Respondent alleged that when he applied for an owner-builder permit, the Applicant intended to construct two dwellings and did not intend to reside at the property after completion. By indicating that he was only building a single dwelling, the Applicant may have contravened section 307A*.* The Respondent also alleged that this conduct amounted to improper conduct under the Act.

63. The Respondent also alleged that the Applicant lacked candour in his dealings with the Tasmanian and ACT regulators in relation to licence applications in those jurisdictions. The decision in Goel No. 1 was made in August 2025, and the finding was made that the Applicant was not a fit and proper person for the purposes of sections 20(1)(a) and/or 25(1)(a) of the Act. In reaching that decision Senior Member Little found that:

(1) The Applicant has acted dishonestly.

(2) The Applicant has shown an unwillingness or inability to comply with his statutory obligations and/or a lack of insight into the significance of non-compliance.

(3) The Applicant has shown a lack of integrity in disregarding the rights of consumers.

64. The Applicant has held a Tasmanian builder licence since 2019. He lodged a renewal application in December 2025. In his application he answered “Yes” to the question:

Have you ever been disqualified from holding, or refused an application for, registration or licence as a building practitioner, or have you had any occupational licence or certificate cancelled or suspended (including interstate licences, certificates or registrations)?

65. However, the Respondent noted that the Applicant did not provide a copy of the decision in Goel No. 1 but rather he sought to downplay the significance of the decision by adding the following explanation:

I am the holder of an CBOS construction license and have maintained an unblemished compliance history in the Tasmania and I continue to meet all technical, safety, and professional obligations.

In NSW, my personal builder license was cancelled as part of an administrative process. The grounds relate to administrative and procedural issues, not technical competence or safety concerns.

I have lodged a formal Administrative Review application with the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT). The Tribunal has accepted the application, and the matter is proceeding through case management and submissions.

Key points:

The NSW cancellation is under active appeal.

No Tribunal or Court has upheld the cancellation.

A number of findings are disputed and subject to evidence and legal submissions.

The matter will be fully reviewed on its merits.

I can provide the Registrar with relevant NCAT Case documents as required.

I respectfully submit that:

I have never been found guilty of wrongdoing, dishonesty, or any criminal offence.

I have not been involved in unsafe building practices or serious technical non-compliance.

The NSW matter concerns administrative and licensing documentation issues.

I have acted openly, honestly, and cooperatively with all regulators.

I maintain full insurance, CPD, and compliance in the licensing conditions.

I am fully committed to meeting every condition, rule, and standard imposed by the CBOS licensing framework.

66. The Applicant made a similar representation to the ACT regulator as part of his licence renewal application.

67. Under cross-examination, the Applicant admitted that he had been found guilty of dishonesty. The Respondent submitted that in providing his explanation, the Applicant was not candid with the regulator. In stating that he had “never been found guilty of wrongdoing, dishonesty, or any criminal offence” he had not been honest with the regulator.

Conspicuous owner-builder warning

68. Section 95 of the Act provides that contracts for the sale of home building work done under an owner-builder permit must include a conspicuous warning that an owner-builder permit was issued in relation to the land, and that the work done under an owner-builder permit is not required to be insured under this Act unless the work was done by a contractor to the owner-builder.

69. The Applicant has acknowledged that the original sale contracts for 40A and 40B did not include the conspicuous owner-builder warning required under section 95(2) of the Act. However, he attributed the omission to an oversight and argued that the purchasers were aware that the work was carried out under an owner-builder permit. The Respondent does not accept the Applicant’s contention that he did not benefit financially or otherwise from the omission and that the buyers were not prejudiced by the absence of the written warning.

70. The Respondent submitted that by undertaking the construction as an "owner-builder" development the Applicant was able to circumvent Home Building Compensation Fund insurance requirements (“HBCF Insurance”). The owner-builder is personally liable for work they have done themselves and uninsured work that is defective. The effect of the lack of HBCF Insurance was that the Applicant and his successors in title were exposed to higher risk in relation to remediation for defective work in breach of statutory warranties. The Respondent submitted that it is for that reason that the conspicuous owner-builder warning is required.

Character references

71. The Respondent noted that the Applicant relies on a number of character references. However, the Respondent submits that little weight can be given to the references as there is no indication with respect to what information the referees had been given about the issues that have been raised in these proceedings.

Disproportionate disqualification

72. The Respondent does not accept that the six-year disqualification is disproportionate to the conduct established. It is submitted that the conduct would be considered, together with the Applicant's lack of insight into the significance of the conduct, including its impact on consumers, and apparent lack of understanding of the Act.

73. The Respondent noted that that the object of sanctions under the legislation is to protect consumers of home building services and not to punish the licensee. The concept of public protection is wide; it embraces fitness, the maintenance of public standards, public confidence and deterrence both of the particular builder and others in the same occupation. The Respondent referred to the decision of the Fair Trading Tribunal’s Chairperson, Judge O'Connor, in Director-General, Department of Fair Trading v Cohen [2000] NSWFTT 3. His honour set out a number of factors to be taken into account in considering an appropriate penalty, including:

74. the nature, width and extent of the contraventions

75. the loss or damage and prejudice in consequence of the contraventions

76. the circumstances in which the contraventions took place

77. whether the licensee has been found to have engaged in any similar conduct

78. the presence of fraudulent or dishonest intent and deliberation on the part of the licensee

79. the extent of carelessness or wilfulness of the conduct

80. the efforts made to correct the situation and what measures have been taken by the licensee

81. what consciousness the licensee had displayed of its obligations under the relevant statute and to the owners

82. the effect upon the licensee

83. antecedents

84. attitude, building history and future compliance

85. The Respondent referred to a number of decisions in which the licence holder was suspended for longer periods than was the case in HSL Group Pty Ltd v Commissioner for Fair Trading, Department of Customer Service [2021] NSWCATAP 112. The Respondent submitted that the period of suspension depends on the circumstances of the case. For example, in Asasi Enterprises Pty Ltd v Department of Finance and Services [2014] NSWCATOD 144 the Applicant was suspended for a period of two years. In Effective Building & Construction Pty Ltd v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2022] NSWCATOD 180 the period of disqualification was reduced from 10 years to 2 years.

86. The Respondent submitted that when these factors are taken into account, the Tribunal would find that that the Applicant is guilty of improper conduct and that he is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence. In the circumstances the appropriate orders would be to cancel the Applicant’s licence and disqualify him from holding a contractor licence for a total of six years.

Mitigating factors

76. The Respondent noted the Applicant’s reliance on a number of matters in mitigation. In response to the factors, the Respondent acknowledged:

77. the Applicant ultimately complied with the Tribunal’s orders, satisfying money orders and rectifying some work; and

78. the Applicant accepted that he exceeded the authority of the owner-builder permit;

79. However, the Respondent also asserted a number of aggravating factors. For example, it submits that the Applicant:

80. disputes any dishonesty in the owner-builder application;

81. blames the Respondent for not picking up the discrepancy in the owner-builder application;

82. disputes allegations of dishonesty;

83. lacks understanding of the protective purposes of the legislation and of insurance; and

84. lacks understanding of the duty to comply with the Act, including the need to provide a conspicuous owner-builder warning.

Public protection

78. The Respondent submitted that it is apparent that the Applicant has an inadequate understanding of the licensing, insurance, and consumer protection regimes under the Act. He lacks insight into his own behaviour, and he has shown no remorse for his conduct. The Respondent submits that this raises a real concern that he could not comply with the obligations imposed on a licence holder.

79. The Respondent submits that the public requires protection from the Applicant's future contravening conduct. In the circumstances of this Application, given that the contractor licence was not renewed in December 2024, the Tribunal would disqualify the Applicant for a period of at least 5 years.

The Applicant’s case

80. The Applicant submitted that the Tribunal needs to make a determination as a threshold issue with respect to whether conduct under an owner-builder permit can ground disciplinary action against a contractor licence under section 56 of the Act. He contends that every ground for disciplinary action in section 56 is connected to conduct under the contractor licence regime. Accordingly, he submitted, the disciplinary action was taken without power.

81. Notwithstanding that contention, the Applicant has provided detailed submissions in relation to each of the issues that the Respondent has raised.

The scope of the owner-builder permit

82. It is not in dispute that in 2017 the Applicant was granted development consent for his property at Lithgow. He intended a strata subdivision of the property and proposed a duplex development.

83. In 2020 he applied for an owner-builder permit for the construction of a single dwelling. His evidence was that he intended to build a single dwelling, which he would occupy, and that he would complete a second dwelling at a later stage. However, he constructed the two dwellings simultaneously and he never resided in either dwelling.

84. The Applicant accepts the works technically exceeded the scope of the owner-builder permit and that it would have been prudent to notify the Respondent of that fact. However, he submitted that had an application been made to the Respondent for the work that was actually undertaken, it was a real and reasonable possibility that an amended permit would have been approved.

85. The Applicant submitted that the conduct should be treated as technical non-compliance rather than improper conduct, and that no disciplinary action is warranted.

86. The Applicant submitted that an alternative pathway was available in that the works could have been completed under a contractor licence. As noted, the Applicant was the sole director of Pacific and Pacific held a contractor licence. The Applicant submitted that this available option supports his submission that there was no ulterior motive, dishonesty, or deliberate intent to circumvent the owner-builder permit conditions. He requests that the finding of improper conduct be reconsidered in light of the mitigating circumstances, absence of intent, lack of prejudice, and demonstrated cooperation.

87. In any event, the Applicant submits that the Respondent may be estopped from relying on discrepancy in the permit application as evidence of dishonest intent, having issued the permit with full constructive notice of the dual occupancy DA without objection.

Conspicuous owner-builder warning

88. The Applicant accepts that section 95 of the Act provides that contracts for the sale of home building work done under an owner-builder permit must include a conspicuous warning that an owner-builder permit was issued in relation to the land, and that the work done under an owner-builder permit is not required to be insured under this Act unless the work was done by a contractor to the owner-builder.

89. The Applicant has acknowledged that the original sale contracts for 40A and 40B did not include the conspicuous owner-builder warning required under section 95(2) of the Act. However, he submitted that this omission was an inadvertent administrative oversight, not a deliberate or misleading act. He further submitted that the omission did not cause any prejudice to the purchasers, who were fully aware of the owner-builder status prior to settlement and were given an opportunity to rescind the contracts unconditionally. He stated that he attempted to obtain insurance retrospectively but was advised that it could not be obtained because the project had already been completed under an owner-builder permit.

90. The Applicant submitted that there was no benefit to him as a result of the oversight, that it does not amount to improper conduct, and that no disciplinary action is warranted in relation to the sale contracts for Properties 40A and 40B.

Section 307A of the Crimes Act

91. As noted, the Respondent alleged that the Applicant made a false or misleading statement when he applied for an owner-builder permit and indicated that he was only building a single dwelling.

92. The Applicant submits that, at the time of applying for the owner-builder permit, his genuine intention was to build a single dwelling, and therefore the application at the time was not false or misleading.

93. He submits that if a duplex had been intended from the outset, there were lawful options available to achieve that objective. These included applying for an owner-builder permit for a duplex or using Pacific’s contractor licence. In those circumstances there was no need to provide false information.

94. The Applicant noted the dual occupancy development approval and submitted that it did not require both dwellings to be built simultaneously. It did not prevent construction of only one dwelling initially.

95. The Applicant submitted that a change in circumstances arose due to the COVID-19 pandemic causing extraordinary disruption, changes to relocation and family plans and major personal and financial uncertainty.

Disproportionate disqualification

96. The Applicant's submission is that the six-year disqualification is grossly disproportionate to the conduct established. In support of this submission, he referred to the decision in HSL Group Pty Ltd v Commissioner for Fair Trading, Department of Customer Service in which a six-month disqualification for admitted deliberate dishonesty was upheld by the Appeal Panel. He submits that in this matter the relevant conduct occurred under an owner-builder permit.

97. Noting that a six-year disqualification sits at the most severe end of the range available, the Applicant raised the following as relevant considerations:

98. the conduct concerned a single development;

99. no defect in the work, and no consumer harm, has ever been identified, the relevant waterproofing having passed the Council’s own inspection;

100. in any event, no consumer suffered unrecovered loss: the affected consumers were made whole through Tribunal orders with which the Applicant complied;

101. the Applicant’s compliance record of nearly 10 years of practice is otherwise unblemished, with no prior disciplinary history;

102. the conduct occurred in the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic;

103. the Applicant remains a fit and proper person to hold a licence in other Australian jurisdictions;

104. the disciplinary action is internally inconsistent;

105. enforcement has been uneven: the principal of CPF Construction received only a reprimand and training, while EME Roofing Pty Ltd and FM Electrics and Property Services Pty Ltd and Limitless Plumbing faced no disciplinary action;

106. the contractor licence has been inoperative since December 2024.

Interstate licences

98. The Applicant expressly relied upon the ACT licence renewal of 3 December 2025 as evidence of fitness and propriety. He submitted that:

That renewal was granted after full and express disclosure by the Applicant of the NSW licence cancellation and ongoing NCAT proceedings, as required under the Construction Occupations (Licensing) Act 2004 (ACT). Notwithstanding that disclosure, the ACT regulator was satisfied the Applicant remained fit and proper to hold the same class of building licence.

99. The Applicant relies on the successful renewals of his ACT and Tasmanian builder licences as evidence that he remains a fit and proper person to hold a building licence. His evidence is that he has held a licence in the ACT since 2019, with no adverse findings, suspensions or disciplinary action. The ACT regulator renewed the licence notwithstanding that he had disclosed the decision to cancel his licence that is the subject of these proceedings.

100. Similarly, the Applicant has held a Tasmanian builder licence since 2019. That licence was renewed notwithstanding that he had disclosed the decision to cancel his licence that is the subject of these proceedings.

101. The Applicant submits that these renewals indicate that the Respondent’s cancellation of his licence and the imposition of a six-year disqualification period is not reasonably necessary to protect consumers and instead operates punitively, contrary to the protective purpose of the Act.

Goel No.1 Outcome

102. The Applicant submits that the outcome of the decision in Goel No.1 is not determinative of the issues in this matter as the Goel No.1 proceedings are distinct from the present disciplinary proceedings. He submits that the Tribunal is required to determine these proceedings on their own merits, having regard to the evidence and submissions filed.

Character references

103. As noted, the Applicant relies on a number of character references. Clearly, each of the referees holds the Applicant in high regard. They refer to his extensive knowledge, honesty, integrity and experience in residential construction, and his dedication to maintaining high standards.

104. The referees did not attend the hearing.

Mitigating factors

105. The Applicant relies on the following matters in mitigation:

106. The conduct was isolated and limited.

107. There was no actual loss, harm, or consumer detriment caused by the Applicant, and any issues were promptly addressed.

108. Any shortfalls were, at most, low-level negligence or an error of judgment, not recklessness or deliberate misconduct.

109. The Applicant has a clean compliance history and there is no evidence of fraudulent, deceptive, or dishonest intent.

110. The Applicant cooperated promptly and transparently throughout the investigation.

111. The Applicant has expressed genuine remorse and a willingness to implement corrective measures to ensure future compliance.

112. The investigation, spanning more than four (4) years, has caused severe personal, emotional and financial hardship to the Applicant and his family.

113. The professional consequences are disproportionate.

114. The Applicant derived no financial gain or benefit from the alleged conduct.

115. The Applicant complied with NCAT outcomes, including significant payments and good-faith rectification efforts.

116. The Applicant provided character references from reputable members of the community.

117. The Applicant's degree of cooperation with the relevant authorities.

Relief Sought

106. The primary outcome that the Applicant seeks is an order setting aside the Respondent’s decision and reinstatement of the licence. Alternatively, the Applicant seeks an order replacing the disqualification with a reprimand and mandatory education. The Applicant also seeks correction of public records and restoration of Home Building Compensation Fund eligibility.

Consideration

107. The purpose of a contractor licence under the Act is well established. In Cosbar Constructions Pty Ltd v Director General, New South Wales Fair Trading [2015] NSWCATOD 67 Senior Member Scahill observed at paragraph [99] of her decision:

Consistently with the decisions of the High Court in Hughes & Vale Pty Ltd v The State of New South Wales (No 2) and Australian Broadcasting Tribunal -v- Bond and Ors [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321 the holding of a contractor licence under the Act attests that the holder is a person who will honestly perform his or her role as a contractor: see also Kioussis -v- Director General, Department of Fair Trading [2002] NSWADT 2 at paragraph 69, per Henessy DP. What fit and proper means must be viewed in the light of, "... the activities in which the person is or will be engaged": Re Percival and Australian Securities Commission [1993] AATA 196; (1993) 30 ALD 280, at 290. What is fit and proper will depend on the legislative context and the nature of the particular profession, trade or occupation in question: Re Brennand & Australian Casino Surveillance Authority (1995) 38 ALD 794, at 796 para [41].

108. The views expressed in Cosbar Constructions and Kioussis have been followed in numerous decisions of this Tribunal and the former Administrative Decisions Tribunal. Most recently they were followed by Senior Member McAteer in Shoostovian v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2022] NSWCATOD 93

109. It is also well established that the power to take disciplinary action under the Act is to protect the consumers of home building services and not to punish the licensee.

Can conduct under an owner-builder permit ground disciplinary action against a contractor licence?

As noted, the Applicant has alleged that the disciplinary action that was taken by the Respondent was taken without power because conduct under an owner-builder permit cannot ground disciplinary action against a contractor licence under section 56 of the Act. I do not agree with that contention.

110. The Appeal Panel in the Goel appeal decision stated at paragraphs [73] to [74]:

73 [A]t the hearing, the appellant pressed a submission that the Tribunal had erred by taking into account events relating to the building of the duplex development, all matters relating to that having been “carried out under the owner-builder permit”. In short, he said the conduct was in a personal capacity and not in a contractor capacity and therefore the Tribunal had regard to an irrelevant consideration in considering whether he was a fit and proper person.

74 This submission is misconceived. The appellant pointed to no authority for this submission, and it is well established that the “fit and proper person” test may have regard to the actions, character and integrity of the individual without limitation on the capacity in which the person conducts themselves. Further, s 20(1A) and 25(1A) make it clear that the Secretary (and therefore the Tribunal) is required to consider whether the applicant is of “good repute, fame and character”, without the limitation advanced by the appellant. It is for this reason that criminal behaviour or aberrant conduct may be properly considered in the assessment of fitness and propriety.

111. The Applicant’s submission to the contrary is rejected. It follows that any criminal behaviour or aberrant conduct may be properly considered in the assessment of the Applicant’s fitness and propriety.

112. The Applicant’s submission with respect to estoppel is also rejected. A government body cannot be estopped from doing its job and must keep its decision-making power free to act in the public interest. No conduct on the part of the Respondent could operate as an estoppel against the operation of the Act: Maritime Electric Co., Ltd. v*. General Dairies, Ltd.* (1937) A.C. 610.

Goel No. 1 findings

113. As has been noted above, in her reasons in Goel No. 1 Senior Member Little found that the Applicant was not a fit and proper person to hold a contractor licence or a supervisor or tradesperson certificate pursuant to sections 20(1)(a) and 25(1)(a) of the Act. The Senior Member reached this finding noting that the Applicant caused or was complicit in falsifying a document in pursuit of an occupation certificate. She stated:

62 The certificate was an act of deception. It was false. It was motivated by the ulterior motive of the Applicant to obtain an occupation certificate and to obtain an advantage unfairly in the absence of a legitimate waterproofing certification. The admissions that the Applicant makes … shows that the Applicant does not understand or cannot recognise his own deceptive conduct or conversely what is required to act honestly. …

114. In Goel No. 1 Senior Member Little also noted that the Applicant had provided false information to the Respondent in his permit application. He had indicated that the development would be a single dwelling in which he would reside. However, he constructed a dual occupancy which he sold prior to completion and in which he never resided. Senior Member Little noted that the Applicant had alleged that the COVID-19 pandemic caused “financial constraints” that led to a change of position with respect to the Development. Senior Member Little further noted:

65 Even if there was such evidence (and there is not), the allegations made by the Applicant leading to the alleged change of position is unconvincing and contradictory to the other allegations and facts in this case for the following reasons:

(1) First, the Applicant relies upon a change of position allegedly caused by the COVID epidemic that occurred sometime between the day of the permit application on 23 September 2020 (when, according to him he still intended to construct a single dwelling) and 21 November 2020 when earthworks for the construction of the Development were scheduled. However, the COVID epidemic and its impacts on this State had been experienced from the beginning of 2020 and by the time of the permit application, there had already been implemented vast restrictions, lock-downs and border control measures both in respect of the State and the country. To the extent that the epidemic caused specific financial constraints on the Applicant, no explanation was given as to why those constraints were only experienced in the period following the permit application before construction but not arising at any time prior to the permit application despite the COVID epidemic subsisting for some time.

(2) Secondly, the period when the alleged change of position occurred was a period of only eight weeks. It is difficult to reconcile how such a dramatic change of position occurred and was able to be facilitated to allow for a scheduled earthworks by November 2020.

(3) Thirdly, the allegation of alleged financial constraints and difficulties in finding trades and materials sits uneasily with the expansion of the development to include two duplexes because that decision increased costs, increase trades and increase materials.

(4) Fourthly, the allegation of financial constraints is inconsistent with the Applicant’s evidence during cross-examination. In answer to questions related to the fact that declaring the Development as an “owner-builder” development allowed him to circumvent Home Building Compensation Fund insurance requirements, and asking whether the Applicant acknowledged that the absence of insurance was disadvantageous to a purchaser, the Applicant indicated that it was only a slight advantage because the Applicant was able to pay for any claim. This evidence is inconsistent with the assertion that at the same time, the Applicant was experiencing financial constraints and challenges.

(5) Fifthly, the allegation that the initial plan of the Applicant was to build two duplexes – one for himself and his family and one for his parents to live-in is inconsistent with the fact that the Applicant’s parents did not have Australian citizenship or any right of residency in Australia either at the time of the permit application, or years later, as at May 2025 at the time of the hearing.

(6) Sixthly, the Development was advertised for sale as soon as it reached lock-up.

(7) Seventhly, the Applicant was a licensed and experienced builder and qualified civil engineer and knew at the time of lodging the permit application that a single dwelling was not the same as a dual dwelling; there was a requirement of special circumstances for the construction of a dual occupancy under an owner-builder permit which he admitted knowing; and the insurance implications for himself and future purchasers.

115. Senior Member Little concluded at paragraph [66] of her decision:

I accept … that the Applicant provided false and misleading information to the Respondent in the permit application and false and misleading information to the council in the waterproofing certificate. Each are instances of dishonesty and that the Applicant is not a fit and proper person for the purposes of the Act.

Is the Tribunal bound to follow findings of fact made in Goel No.1?

116. The principle of judicial comity might suggest that one tribunal should follow findings of a comparable tribunal. However, the principle of judicial comity does not apply in tribunals. Nevertheless, there are compelling reasons why tribunals might adopt a similar approach to prevent conflicting decisions. The circumstances of each case will determine the approach to be taken.

117. In Kioussis -v- Director General, Department of Fair Trading [2002] NSWADT 2 Deputy President Hennessy observed at paragraphs [47]–[48]:

47 Many of the matters in issue in these proceedings have been the subject of previous findings by other courts and tribunals. The general rule is that evidence of any finding of fact, including those relating to credit, are not admissible to prove the existence of a fact in issue in these proceedings. Section 91 Evidence Act 1995 provides that:

(1) Evidence of the decision, or of a finding of fact, in an Australian or overseas proceeding is not admissible to prove the existence of a fact that was in issue in that proceeding.

(2) Evidence that, under this Part, is not admissible to prove the existence of a fact may not be used to prove that fact even if it is relevant for another purpose.

48 The Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inquire into and inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks fit, subject to the rules of natural justice: ADT Act s 73(2). Even so, the Tribunal must make its decisions based on logically probative evidence. The rules of evidence as set out in the Evidence Act 1995 provide a guide as to evidence that will tend to be reliable and relevant.

118. In Helou v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2003] NSWADT 124 Judicial Member Higgins adopted the views of the Deputy President, in Kioussis. Judicial Member Higgins stated at paragraphs [55]–[56]:

55 Furthermore, the issue to be determined by the Deputy President in that case was whether Ms Kioussis was a fit and proper person to be granted a qualified supervisors certificate under the Home Building Act 1989 having regard to the adverse findings. Had she been found guilty of an offence of dishonesty, the fact of such a finding would be a relevant matter to consider in the determination of her fitness and propriety to be issued with the certificate or licence for which she had applied. Furthermore, the Tribunal would not go behind the proven facts on which the conviction was based, but would consider all the circumstances surrounding the conviction in making its determination.

56 In this case, there is a preliminary issue to be determined; namely, whether Mr Helou has in fact contravened s.39(2) of the Firearms Act, notwithstanding that the magistrate determined that no offence had been committed.

119. In this matter, the issue of the Applicant’s fitness and propriety is to be considered. The issue was the subject of findings by the Tribunal in Goel No.1. The material which was before Senior Member Little is in evidence in these proceedings and there is no dispute on the underlying facts on which the Senior Member made her decision. The area of dispute is whether, after consideration of those facts in light of additional material provided in these proceedings, the disciplinary grounds have been proven and if so, whether action against the Applicant’s contractor licence is warranted.

120. In my opinion, as it is open to this Tribunal to make findings contrary to those found made in Goel No.1, this Tribunal should not simply adopt the findings made in Goel No.1. As the Deputy President noted in Kioussis*,* the Tribunal must make its own decisions based on logically probative evidence.

The Applicant’s fitness and propriety

121. In Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No.2) the High Court said that fitness and propriety involve three things, honesty, knowledge and ability. Of those factors, the Applicant’s honesty is seriously questioned.

The Applicant’s honesty

122. The Applicant’s honesty has been called into question in regard to several issues. These include the falsification of a waterproofing certificate; representations made in obtaining the owner-builder permit; exceeding the scope of the owner-builder permit; lack of candour with the ACT and Tasmanian regulators; and his failure to provide a conspicuous owner-builder warning as required by section 95 of the Act.

The waterproofing certificate

123. As has been noted, in about September 2021 the Applicant signed a certificate and warranty on the letterhead of Auss Water Proofing and Tiling Group Pty Ltd and provided the certificate to the Lithgow City Council. It is apparent that he did so in support of an application for an occupation certificate.

124. The Applicant has accepted that the certificate contained information that was wrong. He signed the certificate as director of Auss Water Proofing & Tiling when he was not a director of that company. He cited Pacific's licence number and a false ABN.

125. A copy of the certificate is in evidence. I am satisfied that the Applicant caused the falsification of that document and provided it to the Lithgow City Council in support of an occupation certificate. He did so as he required an occupation certificate in order that he could sell the properties.

126. In my view it is improbable that the Applicant would not have been aware that he had provided a falsified certificate. I am satisfied that he took that action for personal gain in that it was intended to allow him to sell the properties.

127. He attempted to minimise the significance of the falsified certificate by reference to inspections that the Council carried out on the property. In my view, the falsification of the certificate was an act of deception. I am satisfied that this amounts to improper conduct and this is a relevant consideration in assessing the Applicant’s fitness and propriety.

The owner-builder permit

128. It is not in dispute that the Applicant was granted development consent for his property at Lithgow in 2017. His application indicated that he proposed a duplex development. However, in 2020 he applied for an owner-builder permit for the construction of a single dwelling on the property. It is also not in dispute that the Applicant constructed a duplex on the property notwithstanding that the owner-builder permit was for the construction of a single dwelling.

129. The Applicant has conceded that he exceeded the scope of the permit. However, he submitted that it was a technical non-compliance rather than improper conduct. I do not agree.

130. In my view, given the Applicant’s stated experience as a builder, it is implausible that he would not have been aware that his owner-builder permit was for the construction of a single dwelling and that his intention was to build a duplex. He would have also been aware of the restrictions on the grant of an owner-builder permit for the construction of a duplex.

131. He has provided an explanation for his changed position in relation to the construction. He submitted that a change in circumstances arose due to the COVID-19 pandemic. That is a plausible explanation for his changed position. However, it is not an explanation for his failure to correct the information that had been given in obtaining the owner-builder permit. In my view, the failure to make this correction is unlikely to have been a mere administrative error. He was clearly aware that he was exceeding the scope of the permit and continued to do so. I am satisfied that this omission amounts to improper conduct and this is a relevant consideration in assessing the Applicant’s fitness and propriety.

Lack of candour with the ACT and Tasmanian regulators

132. As has been noted, in Goel No. 1 Senior Member Little found that the Applicant has acted dishonestly. It is not in dispute that in his dealings with the Tasmanian and ACT regulators in relation to licence applications in those jurisdictions the Applicant declared that he had refused an application for a registration or licence as a building practitioner. However, the Respondent alleged that the Applicant lacked candour in his dealings with those regulators and that he sought to downplay the significance of the decision in Goel No. 1.

133. I agree with that submission. I have set out above the submission that the Applicant made to the regulators as part of his licence renewal application. He made those submissions in the knowledge that he had been found guilty of dishonesty. In my view, downplaying the significance of the finding of dishonesty is itself an act of dishonesty.

134. The Respondent submitted that in providing this explanation, the Applicant was not candid with the regulator. In stating that he had “never been found guilty of wrongdoing, dishonesty, or any criminal offence” he had not been honest with the regulator. I am satisfied that making this submission amounts to improper conduct and this is a relevant consideration in assessing the Applicant’s fitness and propriety.

Conspicuous owner-builder warning

135. As noted, section 95 of the Act requires a conspicuous warning that the work was done under an owner-builder permit. The Applicant has acknowledged that the sale contracts for 40A and 40B did not include the required warning. However, he attributed the omission to an oversight, and he argued that the purchasers were not prejudiced and that he did not benefit from the omission.

136. In my view it is plausible that the Applicant omitted to include the warning due to an oversight. However, given the Applicant’s stated experience as a builder, I do not accept that he would not have been aware of the conditions of the permit. His referees have particularly noted his “extensive experience and deep knowledge in residential construction” and that he is known for his “integrity, capability, and dedication to maintaining high standards in every project he undertakes”.

137. I agree with the Respondent that the purpose of the requirement to include the warning is to benefit the purchasers. It allows purchasers to assess whether to make the purchase in the absence of HBCF Insurance and the exposure to higher risk in relation to remediation for defective work.

138. In the circumstances I do not accept that the Applicant did not benefit from the omission. As the Respondent has noted, the construction under the owner-builder permit allowed the Applicant to circumvent the HBCF insurance requirements. It is arguable that this would have increased his profit margin. I am satisfied that this omission amounts to improper conduct and this is a relevant consideration in assessing the Applicant’s fitness and propriety.

The Applicant’s Knowledge

139. The omissions cited by the Respondent are inconsistent with the views expressed by the referees. If in fact the Applicant was not aware of the obligations imposed on him as a licensed contractor and as an owner-builder, it casts doubt on the adequacy of his industry knowledge generally and the depth of his knowledge of residential construction in particular.

The Applicant’s Ability

140. The Applicant has made reference to his significant experience in the industry, and he has asserted that he has an unblemished record. He referred to a long compliance period having undertaken some 25 projects since 2018.

141. While he has made assertions in regard to his skills as a builder. He has not provided evidence in support of those assertions, and they are to be contrasted with the deficiencies in the work undertaken at Property 40A and Property 40B.

142. As I have noted above, the Applicant has also made assertions in regard to his honesty. However, he falsely stated to the Tasmanian regulator:

I have never been found guilty of wrongdoing, dishonesty, or any criminal offence. I have not been involved in unsafe building practices or serious technical non-compliance.

143. Further, in these proceedings he submitted that the fact that the works exceeded the scope of the owner-builder permit should be treated as technical non-compliance. These two submissions are inconsistent.

144. In my view the questions of the depth of the Applicant's knowledge and the extent of his ability are relevant considerations in assessing the Applicant’s fitness and propriety.

The Cohen factors

145. I have set out above a number of considerations that were outlined by Judge O'Connor, in Director-General, Department of Fair Trading v Cohen*.* In the circumstances of this matter, it is my view that the most significant of those factors are the presence of fraudulent or dishonest intent and deliberation on the part of the licensee and the extent of carelessness or wilfulness of the conduct.

146. I have referred to a number of instances which, in my view, involved fraudulent or dishonest intent. These include:

147. provision of the false waterproofing certificate;

148. exceeding the scope of the owner-builder permit;

149. lack of candour with the ACT and Tasmanian regulators;

150. failure to provide the conspicuous owner-builder warning.

151. In addition, the Applicant has made little if any efforts to correct those situations. I agree with the Respondent that he has shown an unwillingness or inability to comply with his statutory obligations. He lacks insight into his own behaviour, and he has shown no remorse for his conduct and a lack of insight into the significance of non-compliance. His disregard for the rights of consumers raises a concern that he could not comply with the obligations imposed on a licence holder should his licence be reinstated.

152. I have considered the factors that the Applicant has raised as factors in favour of mitigation. None of those factors has altered my views.

153. For completeness I note that, following the hearing, the Applicant raised an issue regarding a record alleged to have been recorded against his contractor licence. That issue is not the subject of these proceedings and will not consider it any further.

Conclusion

150. On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the Applicant is guilty of improper conduct. I am also satisfied that the Applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold the licence. I am therefore satisfied that disciplinary action is warranted.

151. I have considered the Applicant’s submission that the six-year disqualification is grossly disproportionate to the conduct established. I do not agree with that submission. I am satisfied that it is the appropriate order in the circumstances.

152. However, I note that the period of disqualification commenced in October 2025. I do not propose to extend the period of disqualification. The period of disqualification that has already passed is to be taken into account when assessing the time at which the Applicant will again be eligible to apply for a contractor licence. With that limited restriction, the decision under review should be affirmed.

Order

The decision under review is affirmed.

**********

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar