Hodder v Fair Trading
[2019] NSWCATOD 95
At a glance
Source factsCourt
NCAT Occupational
Decision date
2019-05-01
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Judgment (4 paragraphs)
The applicant's case
- The applicant said he had held a carpenter's contractor licence for two years and eight months. He submitted that he had performed various kinds of building and contracting work including construction between 2009 and 2012, while he was an apprentice. He pointed to his qualifications.
- He submitted that he had been unable to get a reference from Eco Friendly Builders because of "money issues". He had difficulty in getting references from his other employers because they were busy people. He said that he should be permitted to rely on his experience as an apprentice as the policy did not state that this was not possible and he had received verbal advice from the respondent over the telephone that this was the case.
- The applicant queried the relevance of the Briggs decision as the case concerned a company which engaged in commercial construction rather than residential construction. He claimed it was unreasonable to ask him to obtain references from persons such as Klomp and Thompson as supervisors. They delegated the supervision to others. He said he did not know that NRW were not licenced. He said the misspelling of Mr Klomp's first name was an error.
- He referred to experience which he said he had while working for Cape Cod Australia. He said: "…as an apprentice I was with the head of the building site at the forefront at all times, being supervised and directed formally…With a highly skilled residential company such as Cape Cod, I have been able to achieve and complete complex tasks such as installing a second storey dwelling on a single residential dwelling and doing so on time in a highly professional manner whilst also managing an array of trades simultaneously."
- Mr Hodder claimed that he had been informed by a representative of Fair Trading that his apprenticeship could be considered as experience. One transcript of a telephone conversation between Mr Hodder and a representative of the respondent was in evidence. Mr Hodder claimed he had been trying to get another transcript of another conversation which also showed he had been misled.