Sharman v Commissioner for Fair Trading, Department of Finance, Services and Innovation

Legislation

1. The Home Building Act 1989 ("the Act") is part of the legislative scheme which regulates many aspects of the home building industry in New South Wales. The scheme is concerned to provide consumer protection including regulating the issue, suspension and cancellation of various licences in relation to residential building work.
2. Section 24(1)(b) of the Act provides that supervisor certificates may be granted for the purposes of the Act. The Commissioner must refuse an application for a supervisor certificate if, relevantly, he or she is not satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold such a certificate and if he or she is not satisfied as to the matters of which he or she is required to be satisfied by sections 33B and 33D of the Act (s 25(1)(a) and s 25(1)(a1)).
3. In determining that Mr Sharman did not have the requisite experience for the purposes of s 33D(1)(b), the Commissioner relied upon a document headed "Instrument - Qualification Requirements for an endorsed contractor licence or supervisor certificate for general building work" dated 31 March 2017 ("the Instrument"). The Instrument sets out the kind of experience and the period of experience which the Commissioner generally considers would enable an applicant to do, or to supervise, the work for which a supervisor certificate is required. The Commissioner assesses all applications in the same category of licence or certificate against the relevant matters in the Instrument.
4. In addition to the qualification requirements (which Mr Sharman meets having obtained a Certificate IV in Building and Construction (Building)), the Instrument provides that an applicant must demonstrate at least two years' relevant industry experience in a wide range of building construction work, where the majority of that experience was obtained within ten years of the date on which the application was made.
5. The Instrument defines "experience" as experience gained by an applicant as: 1. an employee of; or 2. a holder of a supervisor certificate and as a nominated supervisor for the contractor licence held by; or 3. a holder of an endorsed contractor licence contracted to; or 4. a holder of a supervisor certificate in the capacity of a nominated supervisor for a contractor licence held by an individual, partnership or corporation contracted to; the holder of a contractor licence authorising the holder to do the class of residential building work in which the experience was gained ("the Work"), where the applicant, during the relevant period, was:

• supervised and directed in the doing of the Work by the holder of an endorsed contractor licence or supervisor certificate authorising its holder to supervise the Work, and this is verified in the Relevant Application Form; and
• received Remuneration in accordance with law for the Work which the applicant carried out.

1. As the Commissioner acknowledged, the Instrument is not binding on the Tribunal: Whitehouse v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATOD 108 at [39]; Limberis v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATOD 128 at [31]. The Instrument is a policy, but not "Government policy" as that term is defined in ss 50 and 64(1) and of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 and is therefore not binding upon the Tribunal.
2. The Tribunal "may have regard to any other policy applied by the administrator in relation to the matter concerned except to the extent that the policy is contrary to Government policy or to law or the policy produces an unjust decision in the circumstances of the case": see s 64(4) of the ADR Act) Whitehouse at par [39] and Limberis at [31]. The Tribunal must not, however, apply the Instrument inflexibly.
3. The policy requires an applicant for the licence to have two years' experience in a wide range of building construction work, the majority of which was obtained in the 10 years preceding the application for the licence. Mr Sharman has not argued that this aspect of the policy should be departed from by the Tribunal and I see no reason to do so. As I stated in Limberis, the requirement that an applicant for the licence should have current relevant experience is a sensible one. Mr Sharman has not raised any matters which would lead to an unjust or unfair application of the policy in his case.

Claimed experience

1. Mr Sharman provided various documents in support of his application to the respondent to vary his supervisor certificate. He provided additional documents during the assessment of his application and with his request for an internal review of the respondent's initial decision. His claimed relevant experience can be categorised as set out below.

John Hall

1. With his application, Mr Sharman provided a referee's statement from John Hall signed and dated 24 November 2018. Mr Hall stated in that document that Mr Sharman had worked for him as a subcontractor from 2013 to 2018 on "residential dual occupancy construction and general building work". He further specified that Mr Sharman had undertaken frame erection, concrete pouring, plasterboard and carpentry.
2. Mr Sharman provided a further referee statement from Mr Hall dated 15 January 2019 which verified Mr Sharman's experience at a dual occupancy in Toowoon Bay and at premises in Berkeley Vale.

Toowoon Bay

1. In the January 2019 referee statement Mr Hall said that between 1 August 2016 and 10 February 2017 and again between 27 February 2017 and 19 May 2017 Mr Sharman gained seven months experience under his supervision as a part-time subcontractor for the construction of a dual occupancy in Toowoon Bay. Mr Hall stated that Mr Sharman undertook "All aspects of carpentry, flooring and plasterboard fixing".
2. An officer of the respondent made further enquiries of Mr Hall as Mr Sharman had also provided evidence that he was employed by Hudson Homes Pty Ltd as a construction supervisor from 15 August 2016 to 18 December 2016. In response, Mr Hall stated that he employed Mr Sharman after he had worked for Hudson Homes and the dates indicated in his reference may not be exactly correct. He said Mr Sharman did some carpentry work as well as helping lay a vinyl floor and sheeting plasterboard.
3. The respondent states that it is apparent that Mr Sharman's experience at this site was primarily in the area of carpentry, with a very limited amount of broader experience in the form of sheeting plasterboard. The respondent also states that the duration of the experience at this site is not easily determinable but would appear much less than seven months as the work was part-time.
4. Mr Sharman states that he also did formwork, concreting, gyprocking, carpentry and installed vanities at the site. He said that from about August 2016 to December 2016 he was working on the Toowoon Bay site two or three days a week as well as working full-time for Hudson Homes but stated that all up the work was about seven months. He conceded that the majority of the work was carpentry.

Berkeley Vale

1. Mr Hall stated that between 13 February 2017 and 24 February 2017 Mr Sharman gained 12 days experience under his supervision as a part-time sub-subcontractor at the Berkeley Vale premises. He said the job was a rather small renovation and Mr Sharman was the leading hand on site and ran that job for him as he was tied up with other houses, although he did periodic inspections. The work involved internal frame alterations, fixout and flooring.
2. The respondent states that Mr Sharman hasn't provided any further details of the experience he gained at the Berkeley Vale site and, in any event, his experience at that site was very limited in duration and breadth and is not demonstrated that he has experience in a wide range of building construction work. For his part, Mr Sharman states that he did gyprocking, plastering and carpentry and moved walls.

Matthew Juhasz

1. Mr Juhasz provided a referee statement dated 18 February 2019 verifying Mr Sharman's experience at two properties in Terrigal.

First Terrigal property

1. Mr Juhasz states in the reference that between 15 March 2013 and 21 March 2015 Mr Sharman gained 12 months experience under his supervision as a full-time subcontractor for the renovation of this property at Terrigal. He described Mr Sharman's roles and responsibilities as "coordinate trades in deliveries; oversee and help myself construct and renovate; work to AS and Building Codes". However, in an email on 29 March 2019 to an officer of the respondent, Mr Juhasz said that he thought that he had been misinformed and didn't understand what he had been required to attest to in the reference. He said that he had never hired Mr Sharman as a carpenter or ever paid him. He said he had seen Mr Sharman working on site as a carpenter for years and as a supervisor for Fowler Homes. He said the Terrigal house was his own and he did the carpentry/building work himself as an owner builder. He said that Mr Sharman lend him a hand from time to time for experience. Mr Juhasz withdrew his reference.

Second Terrigal property

1. in relation to the second Terrigal property, Mr Juhasz stated in his reference that between 26 May 2017 and 8 November 2018 Mr Sharman gained 18 months experience under his supervision as a full-time subcontractor for the construction of this property. He described Mr Sharman's roles and responsibilities as being "to work under myself for the owner to construct new home and detached garage. Assisting with set out, working to plans and engineering details". In his email of 29 March 2019 Mr Juhasz clarified that the dates he had specified were the dates of the project. He said that the project was for an owner builder and he had seen Mr Sharman working on the site. He said he himself had walked away from the job about 18 months previously and he does not know how long Mr Sharman in fact worked on the site.
2. At the hearing, Mr Sharman stated that in relation to the first Terrigal property, this was in fact owned by Mr Juhasz who was renovating it. Mr Sharman said that he gave Mr Juhasz a hand from time to time. He said that in relation to the second property he and other carpenters were subcontracted to the owner by Mr Juhasz and he did demolition work putting up walls and gyprocking. He couldn't remember how long he had worked on the job but said it was weeks rather than months.

Fowler Homes

1. In support of his application, Mr Sharman provide a reference from Jenny Matek who states that Mr Sharman was employed at Fowler Homes as a construction supervisor from August 2014 to May 2016. The letter states that Ms Matek was the Operations Manager at the time and Mr Sharman reported to the Construction Manager. The reference does not give details of the work performed by Mr Sharman and Ms Matek is not a licensed person. Other documents provided by Mr Sharman indicate his employment with Fowler Homes commenced in March or April 2015 and ended around November 2016.
2. Mr Sharman provided a copy of a "Third party Verification Report" for the recognition of prior learning assessment process for his Certificate IV in Building and Construction which was signed by Vince La Rosa of RZK Group Pty Ltd but not dated. Mr La Rosa states that he was Construction Manager at Fowler Homes and that Mr Sharman reported to him. The respondent states that Mr La Rosa is the holder of a supervisor certificate but notes that the document signed by him relates solely to his attestation that Mr Sharman met various competencies for the purpose of the Certificate IV and does not provide any details of the type of work Mr Sharman undertook.
3. In a telephone conversation with an officer of the respondent conducted on 26 November 2019 Mr La Rosa said that Mr Sharman was a site supervisor whose responsibility was to have houses built. He said that each site manager would be allocated a number of houses. The site manager was responsible for managing and coordinating contractors to do the work, releasing payments to subcontractors, work health and safety and would do site inspections during construction. He said that Mr Sharman was not "on the tools" except maybe a little here and there. He said that he supervised Mr Sharman for at least a year. Mr La Rosa said that Mr Sharman was good at his job and there had been nothing but positive feedback from clients.
4. Mr Sharman said that he worked for Fowler Homes for 18 months. He supervised every aspect of the building of a house and would organise subcontractors, certification of works and audits along the way. He said he was managing 25 to 30 homes for Fowler at any one time and would be on the site every day except for one day a week when he was at a meeting. He said he would do small carpentry jobs himself so as not to have to get the contractors back on site. He said he worked under the supervision of Mr La Rosa and the person who succeeded him in the role, Mr Salerno.

Hudson Homes

1. Mr Sharman states that he worked for Hudson Homes from 15 August 2016 to 18 December 2016 and did the same work there as at Fowler Homes. The General Manager of Hudson Homes has confirmed that Mr Sharman was employed as a Construction Supervisor during that period. Mr Sharman has not provided any referee statement and has no verification from a licensed builder concerning the work that he undertook during that period. He provided a copy of a contract of employment but the document supplied does not set out his roles and responsibilities. Mr Sharman states that Hudson would not do a referee statement because he left as he did not like how the company treated people.

Owner builder experience

1. Mr Sharman relies on his experience as an owner builder under two owner builder permits for houses at Chisholm (in 2018) and Wamberal (in 2017).

Consideration of experience requirements

1. Mr Sharman relies on his experience as an owner builder and the only evidence about the work that he carried out is given by himself. The Tribunal has consistently held that an applicant alone cannot verify their own experience: Limberis v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATOD 128; Grewal v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2014] NSWCATOD 101; Shoobridge v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2015] NSWCATOD 42; Trengrove v Commissioner for NSW Fair Trading, Department of Finance and Services [2015] NSWCATOD 131. Mr Sharman's work as an owner builder cannot therefore count towards his experience.
2. In relation to Mr Sharman's experience with Mr Hall on the Toowoon Bay and Berkeley Vale projects, not only is it difficult to ascertain the length of time that Mr Sharman spent on the Toowoon Bay site, it appears from the evidence of Mr Hall that Mr Sharman's experience related primarily to carpentry work for which he held a license. In Locking v Department of Finance and Services [2013] NSWADT 239 at [17-19] Deputy President Hennessey stated: This experience in carpentry and joinery work is not the equivalent of "a wide range of building construction work" as required by the Instrument. Carpentry and joinery work is a sub-category of building. It is only one aspect of the work required to be done in order to complete the construction of a residential dwelling. A building contractor has the overall responsibility for a site and must be able to supervise all of the trades required to complete any type of dwelling. Additionally a builder must be able to determine that all trades have complied with all standards and requirements. There are many gaps in Mr Locking's trade supervisory experience and therefore his understanding of certain trades. Those trades include flooring, bricklaying, stonemasonry, wet plastering, painting, decorating, general concreting, tiling, demolishing, fencing, glazing and waterproofing. A building contractor is also able to contract with the public, and must therefore be able to negotiate a contract, quote for a project and co-ordinate the trades to be able to complete the project on time and within budget. He or she must also be able to negotiate and discuss the jobs with council and private certifiers to ensure that the work is passed fit when appropriate.
3. Mr Sharman has not provided any other independent evidence of the nature of the work he undertook for Mr Hall and on the basis of Mr Hall's evidence it cannot be said that Mr Sharman undertook a wide range of building construction work on these projects.
4. Similar issues arise in relation to the work which Mr Sharman claims to have done for Mr Juhasz. With regard to the first site at Terrigal, Mr Sharman was not in fact supervised by Mr Juhasz and the evidence of both is that Mr Sharman simply lent Mr Juhasz a hand from time to time. No detail has been provided of the work undertaken by Mr Sharman or the length of time he worked. Mr Sharman claims to have gained his relevant experience with Mr Juhasz as an employee as required by the Instrument. In Zada v Director General Department of Finances and Services, NSW Fair Trading [2014] NSWCATOD 16 at [36] the Tribunal stated that: In the absence of a statutory definition of "employee" in the HB Act, the word must take its ordinary meaning - "a person working for another person or a business firm for pay" (Macquarie Online Dictionary).
5. Mr Sharman was not engaged, however, by Mr Juhasz or paid for any work he did on this site. He was not therefore an employee of Mr Juhasz at the relevant time.
6. There is some conflicting evidence about what happened at the second Terrigal site. It is clear from Mr Juhasz's statements, however, that he did not supervise Mr Sharman in doing any work on this job. I accept his statements about this. Mr Sharman's own statement concerning the work that he did is not sufficient to establish any relevant experience.
7. I accept that Mr Sharman worked for Fowler Homes from March 2015 until November 2016 and for Hudson Homes from August 2016 to December 2016 as a Construction Supervisor. For reasons which have not been explained, there is some overlap in these periods of employment. His total period of employment for both companies amounts to some 20 months.
8. Mr La Rosa gave somewhat more detailed evidence in his conversation with the respondent's officer about the work undertaken by Mr Sharman for Fowler Homes during the 12-month period he supervised Mr Sharman. That experience is relevant. Nothing has been provided from the supervisor who took over from Mr La Rosa for the remainder of Mr Sharman's period of employment with Fowler Homes. Even if I were to accept, as is likely, that Mr Sharman continued to perform the same role and therefore gained relevant experience, the length of his experience with the company is not sufficient to meet the experience requirements set out in the Instrument.
9. Mr Sharman states that he has been unable to obtain a referee statement from his supervisor at Hudson Homes. Unfortunately, he has not provided any other details of the nature of the work that he undertook in his role for the company and the only evidence about any work he performed is his own. For the reasons set out previously, an applicant cannot verify their own experience and his experience in this regard cannot be considered for the purpose of determining whether he has the requisite experience.
10. At the hearing Mr Sharman insisted that he meets the requirements required for the certificate. Mr Sharman, however, has not demonstrated that he has the breadth of experience required for a supervisor certificate in the category of general building work. There is a general lack of evidence from suitably qualified persons that Mr Sharman has, as required by the Instrument, a minimum of two years relevant industry experience in a wide range of construction work. In the circumstances of this case, I see no reason to depart from the requirements of this aspect of the Instrument. I do not consider that application of the policy in this case would produce an unjust decision. On the evidence before me I cannot be satisfied that Mr Sharman's experience is such that, although he may not strictly meet the requirements of the Instrument, he has otherwise demonstrated that he has extensive relevant experience which would qualify him to be granted a supervisor certificate in the category of general building work. As he noted at the hearing, the vast majority of his experience is in the area of carpentry.
11. For these reasons, the decision under review must be affirmed. I should mention, however, that, even if Mr Sharman's experience could be said to meet the requirements for the granting of the supervisor certificate, he is not, in my view, a fit and proper person to hold a supervisor certificate.

Fitness and propriety

1. The expression 'fit and proper' is a common statutory term and has been considered by this Tribunal and in other jurisdictions in numerous cases.
2. 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.
3. It is generally accepted that what is fit and proper needs 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 (AJO v Director-General of Transport [2012] NSWADT 101 at [26]; Austin v Commissioner for Fair Trading & Commissioner of Police [2016] NSWCATAP 179 at [82]). In Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 94 ALR 11, 65; [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.
4. Fitness and propriety is a question of fact 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.

Referee reports

1. Mr Sharman submitted two referee statements which purported to have been completed and signed by John Hall. The first was dated 24 November 2018 and the second 15 January 2019. The signatures on each document were different. When an officer of the respondent queried whether Mr Hall had completed both forms, Mr Hall stated that he had only completed and signed the form dated 15 January 2019. Mr Sharman said at the hearing that he doesn't know why Mr Hall said he didn't sign the first reference. He said he filled out the form in his handwriting, but Mr Hall signed and dated it in his presence. In relation to the second reference he said he filled out the form and took it to Mr Hall to sign.
2. I do not accept Mr Sharman's evidence that Mr Hall signed both references. The signatures on the documents are significantly different from each other and Mr Hall's clear statement to the officer is that he did not sign the 24 November 2018 reference. There would seem to be no reason why he would say that if it was not true. Mr Sharman therefore knowingly submitted a false document to the respondent.
3. As noted above Mr Sharman also submitted a referee statement signed by Matthew Juhasz on 18 February 2019. In a discussion with the respondent's officer Mr Juhasz disavowed the contents of the document and withdrew it. At the hearing Mr Sharman admitted that he knew the contents of the document were false. He said he was clutching at straws and thought that if he said Mr Juhasz had supervised him everything would be okay. He said that, if the right decision had been made about his application in the first place, he would not have had to put in the reference from Mr Juhasz and other material submitted for the internal review.
4. The fact that Mr Sharman knowingly submitted false documents in support of his application for a supervisor certificate in general building work does not reflect well on his honesty and integrity. Mr Sharman had an obligation to ensure that the information that he provided in support of his application was correct. Mr Sharman gave the impression that the hearing that, as he considers he possesses the relevant experience and skills, he should be granted the supervisor certificate irrespective of whether he actually demonstrates he meets relevant criteria.

Inconsistencies in work history

1. There are other troubling matters which reflect unfavourably on Mr Sharman's fitness and propriety. One of these relates to an owner builder permit issued to him on 28 June 2017 (the second owner builder permit). Under s 31 of the Home Building Act, unless special circumstances exist, a person must not be issued with an owner builder permit within five years of being issued with an owner builder permit in relation to other land. When Mr Sharman applied for the second owner builder permit he was within the five-year period, having previously been issued an owner builder permit for his property in Wamberal.
2. In seeking to establish that the five-year period should be waived, Mr Sharman stated that due to marital separation he was forced to build another house for himself as his ex-partner and children were living in the original home. He also stated that due to a work-related injury he was not working and said that the reason he needed the permit was that he couldn't afford a builder and needed to build the house himself. In support of his application for the second owner builder permit, Mr Sharman made statements and provided documents to the effect he was medically unfit and did not work between January 2017 and June 2017. In this application, however, he claims to have worked almost continually as a subcontractor for Mr Hall during this period.
3. At the hearing Mr Sharman claimed that both things were true and that he undertook paid work to try and rehabilitate himself following his injury. This explanation does not go to the heart of the matter and is an indication that Mr Sharman lacks any awareness of his obligations. It would seem that either Mr Sharman was untruthful in his application for the second owner builder permit or gave untruthful evidence in these proceedings. Either way, this reflects on his honesty and integrity and his response at the hearing demonstrates his lack of insight into his own behaviour and his willingness to abide by the law.

Consumer complaints

1. The respondent points out that complaints have been made against two companies of which Mr Sharman has been the sole director and nominated supervisor - Seaside Homes NSW Pty Ltd and Raw Energy Construct Pty Ltd. The respondent submits that the conduct complained of is relevant to an assessment of whether Mr Sharman is a fit and proper person to hold a supervisor certificate.
2. The respondent referred to three complaints made by consumers. In relation to one complaint concerning premises in Seaforth, Seaside Homes appears to have done work for which the company and Mr Sharman was not licensed, failed to provide a contract for the work and failed to provide the consumer with home warranty insurance. At the hearing Mr Sharman said that he was doing the work for an owner builder and therefore did not think he needed to have a builder's licence. He said he did carpentry work and supervised the job but, as the respondent points out, supervising the building of the house is "building work" for which he was not licensed. In relation to other premises at Chisholm it appears that Mr Sharman represented himself as a builder and failed to fix defects. Similarly, a complaint was made against Raw Energy in relation to work that the company and Mr Sharman were not licensed to do at premises in Kariong. In relation to the last complaint Mr Sharman was ordered by the Tribunal to reimburse the homeowners a sum in excess of $12,500 which was overpaid under the contract and required him to provide certain documents to the owners. Mr Sharman said that he contracted to put a swimming pool in because he thought he was helping the owners and they put pressure on him to start. He indicated that, as it was an above ground pool, he didn't need a license to install it.
3. The complaints made against Mr Sharman and his companies show that they have been contracting for and doing work outside the scope of their authorities. At the hearing Mr Sharman queried how his integrity could be called into question over the complaints. Again, his actions indicate that he lacks insight and understanding and has a disregard for the law and, in particular, the licensing regime governing the home-building industry. His actions demonstrate that he lacks willingness to comply with the provisions of the Home Building Act.

Consideration

1. A person's past conduct is a relevant matter when considering whether the person is fit to hold a license; see Poythress v Director General, NSW Fair Trading [2015] NSWCATOD 100. The issues set out above in relation to past complaints, the inconsistencies between applications he has made to the respondent firstly for an owner builder permit and then for a supervisor certificate and the falsification of referee reports in relation to the current application, reveal a pattern of conduct on the part of Mr Sharman in which he has shown a lack of honesty and a disregard for the law.
2. At the hearing Mr Sharman failed to acknowledge that at any point he has done anything wrong. Indeed, he sought to blame the respondent for the fact that he submitted false referees reports in support of his application by saying that he would not have had to have done that if the respondent had made the right decision in the first place. It may be that Mr Sharman's belief that he possesses the necessary building skills to be issued with a supervisor certificate in the category of general building work is correct (although as set out above, he has not in fact demonstrated that he has the relevant experience to support this belief). However, the proper regulation of the home building industry including the protection of consumers depends on more than building skills. As was stated in Poythress at [91], it requires the ability of license holders to not only comply with the legislative requirements but for them to also understand the importance of those requirements. In my view, Mr Sharman shows no understanding of the importance of those requirements or willingness to comply with them. I am not satisfied that he is a fit and proper person to hold a supervisor certificate in the category of general building work.
3. In the circumstances, the decision to refuse Mr Sharman's application to vary his qualified supervisor certificate from the category of carpentry to the category of general building work is the correct and preferable one. It should therefore be affirmed.

Order 1. 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 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 19 March 2020