Brisk Group Pty Ltd (ACN 603 069 736) v Department of Education [2026] QCAT 287

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Brisk Group Pty Ltd (ACN 603 069 736) v Department of Education [2026] QCAT 287 PARTIES: BRISK GROUP PTY LTD (ACN 603 069 736) (applicant) v DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: OCR136-25 MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters DELIVERED ON: 29 June 2026 HEARING DATE: 7 April 2026 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Cosgrave ORDERS: The Tribunal affirms the Respondent’s 20 December 2023 decision. The Applicant’s application for costs is refused. Each party must bear its own costs of the proceeding. CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - LABOUR HIRE LICENSING - external review of cancellation decision - contravention of relevant law - Labour Hire Licensing Act 2017 (Qld) - Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) - breach of licence condition - fit and proper person - nominated officer requirements Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 8, s 13, s 24, s 25, s 31, s 58 Labour Hire Licensing Act 2017 (Qld), s 3, s 7, s 10, s 16, s 18, s 23, s 24, s 27, s 28, s 33, s 40, s 93, Schedule 1 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 19, s 20, s 21, s 24, s 100, s 102 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 48, s 50, s 51 Austin BMI Pty Ltd & Ors v Deputy Premier of Queensland & Ors [2023] QSC 95 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 Commercial Union Assurance Company of Australia v Ferrcom Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 389 -- 1 of 12 -- 2 Hughes & Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (1955) 93 CLR 127 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 PJB v Melbourne Health (2011) 39 VR 373 APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicant: A Canceri of counsel, with J Nasr, instructed by Jeresyn Legal Respondent: N G Harris of counsel, with L Grayson, instructed by Crown Law REASONS FOR DECISION Introduction [1] Brisk Group Pty Ltd (‘Brisk’ or the ‘Applicant’) has applied for external review under s 93 of the Labour Hire Licensing Act 2017 (Qld) (‘LHL Act’) of a decision to cancel its labour hire licence.1 [2] Brisk held labour hire licence no. LHL-03549-Y2P1L, granted on 1 April 2019 under Part 3 of the LHL Act.2 On 31 August 2023, Eimear Moran, A/Director of the Labour Hire Licensing Compliance Unit (‘LHLCU’), issued a show cause notice under s 23 of the LHL Act proposing the licence’s cancellation.3 [3] On 20 November 2023, Ms Moran cancelled the licence (‘the cancellation decision’) under sub 24(1) on three grounds: (a) Brisk had contravened a relevant law, being the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (‘WCR Act’); (b) Brisk had contravened a licence condition; and (c) Brisk was no longer a fit and proper person to provide labour hire services.4 [4] On 28 March 2022, Ms Angela Siviero was appointed sole director, secretary and shareholder of Brisk, having acquired the company by way of share sale agreement dated 1 February 2022. Ms Siviero is the sole nominated officer for the licence under s 33 of the LHL Act.5 [5] On 20 December 2023, the Respondent’s internal review under the LHL Act affirmed the cancellation decision (‘the Review Decision’).6 [6] The licence cancellation was stayed by consent pending the determination of this review and has since expired (as at 1 April 2024). The licence is taken to continue in force by operation of sub 18(3) of the LHL Act until this application is decided. 1 LHL Act, sub 93(1). 2 Ibid, s 16. 3 Ibid, s 23. 4 Notice of Cancellation of Labour Hire Licence dated 20 November 2023. 5 LHL Act, s 33. 6 Review Decision, s 21 documents, tab 1. -- 2 of 12 -- 3 Statutory context The Labour Hire Licensing Act 2017 [7] The LHL Act’s main purposes are to protect workers from exploitation by providers of labour hire services and to promote the integrity of the labour hire industry.7 [8] Section 7 defines who provides labour hire services. A person provides labour hire services if, in the course of carrying on a business, the person supplies, to another person, a worker to do work.8 It is an offence to provide labour hire services without a licence.9 [9] Subsection 24(1) provides that a licence may be cancelled if the Chief Executive is satisfied that, relevantly: (a) the licensee has contravened a relevant law (sub 24(1)(b));10 (b) the licensee has contravened a condition of the licence (sub 24(1)(a));11 or (c) the licensee is no longer a fit and proper person (sub 24(1)(c)).12 [10] Schedule 1 defines relevant law to include laws of the State imposing an obligation on a person in relation to workers.13 The WCR Act is a relevant law for this purpose. [11] Section 28 states that it is a condition for a licence that the licensee must comply with all relevant laws applying to the licensee.14 [12] Subsection 27(1) sets out the matters to which the Chief Executive must have regard in deciding whether a person is a fit and proper person, including: (a) the person’s character (honesty, integrity and professionalism); (b) the person’s history of compliance with relevant laws or demonstrated ability to comply; and (c) whether the person has previously held a licence that has been cancelled or suspended.15 The Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 [13] Subsection 48(1) of the WCR Act provides that every employer must, for each worker employed, insure and remain insured against injury sustained by the worker.16 Under sub 50(b), there will be a contravention of the general obligation to insure if, having taken out a policy with WorkCover under s 48, the employer does not maintain it in force at all times.17 Subsection 51(1) makes it an offence to contravene s 48.18 7 LHL Act, s 3. 8 Ibid, s 7. 9 Ibid, sub 10(1). 10 Ibid, sub 24(1)(b). 11 Ibid, sub 24(1)(a). 12 Ibid, sub 24(1)(c). 13 Ibid, Schedule 1 (definition of 'relevant law'). 14 Ibid, s 28. 15 Ibid, sub 27(1). 16 WCR Act, sub 48(1). 17 Ibid, sub 50(b). 18 Ibid, sub 51(1). -- 3 of 12 -- 4 The review jurisdiction [14] Section 19 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) provides that in exercising its review jurisdiction, the Tribunal must decide the review in accordance with the QCAT Act and the enabling Act under which the reviewable decision was made; and has all the functions of the decision-maker for the decision being reviewed.19 [15] The review’s purpose is to produce the ‘correct and preferable decision’ by way of a fresh hearing on the merits.20 As the decision-maker, the Chief Executive is required to use his best endeavours to help the Tribunal make its decision on review.21 [16] Under sub 24(1) of the QCAT Act, the Tribunal may: (a) confirm or amend the decision; (b) set aside the decision and substitute its own decision; or (c) set aside the decision and return the matter for reconsideration with directions.22 Ground 1: Contravention of a relevant law [17] The first ground on which the licence was cancelled is that Brisk contravened a relevant law, namely the WCR Act, by failing to maintain workers’ compensation insurance. The Tribunal’s task is to determine whether the contravention has been established and whether it warrants the cancellation of the licence. The factual record [18] On 29 March 2023, WorkCover Queensland (‘WorkCover’) issued Brisk an initial wages review letter requesting information, with a due date of 6 April 2023. Brisk did not respond by that date. [19] On 5 May 2023, WorkCover sent Brisk follow-up correspondence. On the same date, Mr Thistlethwaite, Brisk’s accounts manager, responded apologising for the delay and indicating he would attend to the matter. On 17 May 2023, WorkCover sent a further request with a deadline for a response of 18 May 2023. On 19 May 2023, WorkCover notified Brisk of its intention to issue a default assessment. On 24 May 2023, Mr Thistlethwaite sought a further extension, which was refused. [20] On 25 May 2023, WorkCover issued a default assessment. The premium difference for 2021/22 was assessed at $58,586.36, with a 100% penalty of $50,865.64, for a total of $109,452.00 payable within 30 days. [21] On 29 May 2023, Mr Thistlethwaite provided a payroll activity summary to WorkCover. On 6 June 2023, a Profit & Loss Statement was provided. No cogent explanation appears to have been offered for why these documents could not have been provided when WorkCover originally requested them. 19 QCAT Act, s 19. 20 Ibid, s 20. 21 Ibid, sub 21(1). 22 Ibid, sub 24(1). -- 4 of 12 -- 5 [22] After getting that information, WorkCover issued a Final Premium Notice on 5 July 2023 in the amount of $112,381.32. The notice expressly advised Brisk that it was uninsured and that the amount was payable by 12 July 2023.23 [23] Brisk did not pay the premium by 12 July 2023. It did not pay it at any time prior to the cancellation decision. On 29 August 2023, WorkCover confirmed to the LHLCU that Brisk was uninsured. [24] On 13 October 2023, WorkCover advised Brisk that the 2021/22 wage review outcome showed declared wages of $459,134.00 against actual wages of $1,274,994.00, with a penalty applied for the failure to provide documentation since 29 March 2023. The total payable under an account notice dated 9 November 2023 was $53,520.34. As at the date of the cancellation decision (20 November 2023), that amount had not been paid. [25] On 9 November 2023, Mr Walshe, a WorkCover Customer Audit and Intelligence Manager, confirmed by email to the LHLCU that, following a review of information provided by Brisk, an adjusted assessment had been completed. Although payments to non-individuals had been excluded, the account remained unpaid and WorkCover considered Brisk as uninsured.24 [26] On 17 November 2023, Mr Walshe confirmed that the amount outstanding remained unpaid and Brisk remained uninsured.25 [27] On 2 December 2024 WorkCover obtained a default judgment against Brisk for $29,353.39.26 On or about 9 January 2025, Brisk paid $30,453.39 to WorkCover’s legal representatives.27 The Applicant’s submissions [28] Brisk advances five principal contentions on Ground 1. The Tribunal has considered each in turn using the approach of identifying the Applicant’s position before explaining why it does not withstand scrutiny. (i) The information was under consideration [29] Brisk contends that it was reasonable for it to take no further steps after providing information to WorkCover on 30 May and 6 June 2023, as it believed that information was being considered and the premium position would be resolved. [30] That contention cannot be accepted. The 5 July 2023 Final Premium Notice advised Brisk that it was uninsured and required payment by 12 July 2023. Whatever belief Brisk held before that date could not survive receipt of that notice. Once it received that notice, Brisk knew it was uninsured and took no immediate step to remedy the position. Having been notified it was uninsured, Brisk was obliged under sub 48(1) of the WCR Act to take action to remain insured. No such action appears to have been taken. 23 Final Premium Notice dated 5 July 2023, Hearing Bundle, tab 1, 138. 24 Email from Adam Walshe, Customer Audit and Intelligence Manager, WorkCover Queensland, to LHLCU, dated 9 November 2023. 25 Email from Adam Walshe to LHLCU, dated 17 November 2023. 26 Default judgment entered 2 December 2024 in favour of WorkCover Queensland against Brisk for $29,353.39. 27 The Applicant's evidence is that $30,453.39 was paid on or about 9 January 2025. -- 5 of 12 -- 6 (ii) Difficulties attributable to Mr Thalhofer [31] Brisk contends that its difficulties with WorkCover are attributable to the former owner of the shares, Mr David Thalhofer, who is alleged to have had a poor compliance record with WorkCover, and to an ongoing business dispute which impeded Brisk’s access to records. [32] The share sale agreement is dated 1 February 2022. The shares were transferred to Trojan Consult Services Pty Ltd (on behalf of the purchasers) in April 2022. Ms Siviero was appointed sole director from 28 March 2022. The 2021/22 wages declaration of 15 July 2022 was consequently made by a Brisk representative under its current ownership. If that wage declaration was inaccurate, responsibility falls on the current owner, not Mr Thalhofer. [33] While alleging an eighteen-month dispute with Mr Thalhofer, Brisk has not produced contemporaneous correspondence corroborating its existence. Ms Law’s Statutory Declaration establishes that she undertook two weeks of training with Mr Thistlethwaite, provided all passwords and usernames, and that all current and past business files were left in the accounts office. Brisk led no evidence, including any from Mr Thistlethwaite, to contradict that account. [34] In those circumstances, it is open to the Tribunal to infer that any such evidence would not have assisted Brisk.28 The attribution of Brisk’s non-compliance to Mr Thalhofer is unsupported and cannot displace the contravention finding. (iii) No employees and consequently no policy required [35] Brisk contends that because it had no employees, rather only contractors, it was not required to hold a workers’ compensation policy and therefore did not contravene the WCR Act. [36] This contention is inconsistent with the documentary record. The 2021/22 wage review found actual wages of $1,274,994.00 against declared wages of $459,134.00. Brisk itself declared wages for 2022/23 on or about 8 August 2023. The adjusted assessment, after WorkCover excluded payments to non-individuals, still left a premium owing. (iv) The review will resolve it [37] Brisk contends that the WorkCover wage review was not final, that it had lodged an application for review with the Workers’ Compensation Regulator, and that the premium dispute will be resolved through that process. [38] Brisk’s own review application challenges only the 100% penalty; the submissions from Ms Siviero attached to the application confirm that the premium balance of $28,701.88 should be made payable. Brisk’s review application concedes the underlying liability and, by doing so, implicitly confirms Brisk had been uninsured for a considerable period. The pendency of a penalty review does not suspend the obligation to insure under the WCR Act. Mr Walshe’s emails of 9 and 17 November 2023 confirm the account remained unpaid and Brisk remained uninsured. This contention corroborates, rather than answers, the contravention. 28 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; Commercial Union Assurance Company of Australia v Ferrcom Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 389, per Handley JA at 418E–419G. -- 6 of 12 -- 7 (v) Brisk’s subsequent payment [39] Brisk points to the payment of $30,453.39 made on or about 9 January 2025, following the default judgment entered on 2 December 2024, and submits that the WorkCover issue has now been resolved. [40] The subsequent payment does not answer the contravention. The relevant question under sub 24(1)(b) of the LHL Act is whether Brisk contravened a relevant law, not whether it subsequently remedied the contravention. Brisk was uninsured from at least July 2023 through November 2023 (and, on the evidence, beyond). That period of contravention is established on the evidence and cannot be retrospectively erased by a payment made more than eighteen months later, following enforcement proceedings commencing. The payment speaks to whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to confirm or set aside the cancellation, not to whether the contravention occurred. Conclusion on Ground 1 [41] For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal finds that Brisk contravened a relevant law, being the WCR Act, by failing to maintain workers’ compensation insurance in force in contravention of subs 48(1) and 50(b), constituting an offence under sub 51(1). Each of Brisk’s contentions to the contrary has been considered and rejected. The contravention was sustained and was remedied only after the intervention of default judgment proceedings. Ground 1 is established. Ground 2: Contravention of a licence condition [42] The second ground is that Brisk contravened a condition of its licence. Section 28 of the LHL Act imposes a condition on every licence that the licensee must comply with all relevant laws.29 [43] Brisk contends it is premature to conclude a breach of the licence condition while the WorkCover position remains under review. [44] This submission adds nothing additional to the contentions addressed under Ground 1. The WCR Act is a relevant law within the meaning of Schedule 1 of the LHL Act. A finding that Brisk contravened the WCR Act necessarily involves a consequential finding that Brisk contravened the s 28 condition. There is no independent factual question on which the concept of ‘prematurity’ could operate. [45] Ground 2 is established for the same reasons as Ground 1. Ground 3: Is Brisk a fit and proper person [46] The third ground is that Brisk is no longer a fit and proper person to provide labour hire services within the meaning of sub 24(1)(c) of the LHL Act. In Hughes & Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales,30 Dixon CJ, McTiernan and Webb JJ observed at 156-7 that the expression ‘fit and proper person’ is to be given the widest scope for judgment and indeed rejection, and that each case must depend upon its own circumstances.31 29 LHL Act, s 28. 30 (1955) 93 CLR 127. 31 Hughes & Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (1955) 93 CLR 127, 156–7 (Dixon CJ, McTiernan and Webb JJ). -- 7 of 12 -- 8 [47] In Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond,32 (‘Australian Broadcasting Tribunal’) Toohey and Gaudron JJ observed at 380 that the question whether a person is fit and proper is one of value judgment, in that the seriousness or otherwise of particular conduct is a matter for evaluation by the decision-maker.33 [48] Subsection 27(1) of the LHL Act directs the Tribunal to have regard to the person’s character (including honesty, integrity and professionalism), compliance history, and other prescribed matters.34 The Tribunal considers the fitness issues under several heads. WorkCover non-compliance [49] Brisk’s sustained contravention of the WCR Act is relevant to Brisk’s compliance history under sub 27(1)(b). The contravention lasted approximately eighteen months and was remedied only under compulsion of legal proceedings. The Tribunal has rejected Brisk’s explanations for the contravention. This history weighs heavily against a finding that Brisk has demonstrated an ability to comply with relevant laws. ATO compliance [50] The evidence discloses a pattern of late lodgement of taxation documents administered by the Australian Tax Office (‘ATO’): (a) the Business Activity Statement (‘BAS’) for the period ended 31 December 2022 was lodged late on 12 July 2023; (b) the BAS for the period ended 31 March 2023 was lodged late on 8 August 2023; and (c) there were late lodgements for the April, May and June activity statements. [51] As at the show cause notice, Brisk owed $14,370.13 to the ATO, immediately due and payable. A payment was made on 20 November 2023 reducing the balance to nil, but the overall history evidences a further pattern of non-compliance. Financial viability [52] As of 1 January 2023, Brisk had only $3,592.88 in its bank account. It commenced the 2022/23 financial year with a significant deficit. Its only source of income for a period was deposits from a third-party entity (Servcorp). The Cancellation Notice records that without those deposits, Brisk would have continued to default on its insurance and other obligations. Brisk elected not to satisfy amounts owed to government agencies while receiving small cash injections from other entities. The bank statement provided after the show cause notice showed a deposit of $72,027.37 on 7 September 2023 (the day after the show cause notice) which Ms Moran noted was not consistent with the submissions about ordinary trading. 32 (1990) 170 CLR 321. 33 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, 380 (Toohey and Gaudron JJ). 34 LHL Act, sub 27(1). -- 8 of 12 -- 9 Change of address notification [53] Brisk failed to notify the LHLCU of a change to its principal place of business within 14 days as required by s 40 of the LHL Act.35 The address was updated with ASIC on 1 August 2023. This was not the subject of any submission by Brisk in the 29 November 2023 review submissions. The ‘no exploitation’ contention [54] Brisk contends the LHLCU’s role is to protect workers from exploitation and that nothing has been raised to show actual or potential exploitation of workers. [55] The LHL Act’s statutory purposes extend beyond preventing exploitation to promoting the integrity of the labour hire industry. Subsections 27(1)(a)-(b) direct attention to requirements of honesty, integrity, professionalism and compliance history. Proof of actual exploitation is not a prerequisite to cancellation. The absence of evidence of worker exploitation does not answer or dispose of the fitness ground. Conclusion on Ground 3 [56] Weighing the matters set out above, being the sustained non-compliance with the WCR Act and ATO obligations, serious questions about financial viability, the quality of Brisk’s explanations, and the failure to notify a change of address, the Tribunal considers and finds that Brisk is no longer a fit and proper person to provide labour hire services within the meaning of sub 24(1)(c) of the LHL Act. None of the matters raised by Brisk, individually or cumulatively, call that conclusion into question. Ground 3 is established. Ground 4: Nominated Officer [57] Ms Moran also found that Ms Siviero’s management as sole executive officer and nominated officer was deficient. Section 33 of the LHL Act requires a nominated officer to be an individual who is responsible for the day-to-day carrying on, or takes part in the management, of the business. [58] Brisk contends that Ms Siviero’s three-week hospitalisation did not preclude her from her duties because Mr Thistlethwaite was available and able to carry out the requisite functions. [59] This submission is internally contradictory. It simultaneously relies on Ms Siviero’s incapacity to explain non-compliance and then asserts that Brisk’s capacity was unaffected. If Mr Thistlethwaite was in fact discharging nominated officer functions, Brisk’s failure to add or change the nominated officer is itself the deficiency identified by Ms Moran. If Ms Siviero retained capacity throughout, then the compliance failures occurred on her watch, which reinforces rather than answers the fitness concerns. [60] On either limb of Brisk’s own submission, the position fails. The nominated officer arrangements did not satisfy s 33, and the management failures identified by Ms Moran are properly attributable to the executive and nominated officer. [61] However, applying the authorities to the circumstances of Ms Siviero’s absence and hospitalisation leads the Tribunal to consider and find that while what occurred may 35 Ibid, s 40. -- 9 of 12 -- 10 evidence that Brisk’s nominated officer arrangements were temporarily deficient, the deficiency does not add to the Tribunal’s consideration of the ‘fit and proper person’ test. The Discretion’s Exercise [62] Even where the statutory grounds for cancellation are established, the Tribunal must consider whether cancellation is the correct and preferable decision. Brisk submits that the subsequent payment to WorkCover, the absence of evidence of worker exploitation, and the prejudice of losing the licence should weigh against cancellation. [63] The Tribunal has considered those matters. It is not persuaded that they justify a different outcome, save the finding against Ms Siviero. Brisk’s contravention continued over approximately eighteen months, was remedied only under compulsion of legal proceedings, and was accompanied by a pattern of non-compliance with other regulatory obligations (ATO lodgements, notification requirements), concerns about financial viability, and concerns over Brisk’s explanations throughout the process. The public interest in the integrity of the labour hire licensing system requires that licensees demonstrate a capacity and willingness to comply with relevant laws. The evidence before the Tribunal does not support a finding that Brisk has that capacity or willingness. [64] The Tribunal does not consider that any lesser outcome (such as the imposition of conditions) would adequately address the concerns identified. Cancellation is the correct and preferable decision. Human Rights Consideration [65] In reviewing the decision, the Tribunal is acting in an administrative capacity and is a ‘public entity’ for the purposes of sub 9(4) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (‘HR Act’).36 The Tribunal must not make a decision in a way that is incompatible with human rights and must consider the relevant human rights. [66] The Respondent submits that the following rights are potentially engaged: property rights;37 privacy and reputation;38 and fair hearing.39 [67] A decision is compatible with human rights if it does not limit human rights or, to the extent it does, those limits are justified under the proportionality test in s 13 of the HR Act.40 Property rights [68] Section 24 of the HR Act protects against arbitrary deprivation of property. The licence is capable of engaging this right, but deprivation will not be arbitrary where it is undertaken in accordance with identifiable statutory criteria and for a legitimate purpose. The cancellation is made pursuant to s 24 of the LHL Act upon satisfaction of defined statutory grounds. The Tribunal has found those grounds established. There is no arbitrariness in the relevant sense.41 36 HR Act, s 58(1). 37 Ibid, s 24. 38 Ibid, s 25. 39 Ibid, s 31. 40 Ibid, s 8. 41 PJB v Melbourne Health (2011) 39 VR 373, 395 [87]. -- 10 of 12 -- 11 Privacy and reputation [69] The Tribunal accepts that a cancellation decision may engage the right to privacy and reputation under s 25. However, the publication of the cancellation on the labour hire register is a function of the statutory scheme; the information relates to business regulatory compliance, not personal matters at the core of the right; and the limit is proportionate to the purpose of protecting workers and maintaining industry integrity. Fair hearing [70] The right to a fair hearing under s 31 is satisfied. Brisk has had the benefit of a show cause process, an internal review, and a de novo hearing before this Tribunal, with legal representation throughout. Justification under s 13 [71] To the extent any human right is limited, the Tribunal is satisfied that the limitation is justified under s 13 of the HR Act.42 The purpose of the limitation — protecting workers from exploitation and promoting industry integrity — is significant. There is no less restrictive means of achieving that purpose where the statutory grounds for cancellation are established across multiple heads. The limit achieves a reasonable balance between the Applicant’s interests and the public interest. Decision And Orders [72] For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal finds that: (a) Brisk contravened a relevant law (the WCR Act) within the meaning of sub 24(1)(b) of the LHL Act (Ground 1); (b) Brisk contravened a condition of its licence, namely the condition in s 28 of the LHL Act to comply with all relevant laws (Ground 2); (c) Brisk is no longer a fit and proper person to provide labour hire services within the meaning of sub 24(1)(c) of the LHL Act (Ground 3); and (d) Brisk’s nominated officer arrangements were temporarily deficient, but that deficiency is insufficient by itself to support the fitness finding (Ground 4). [73] Cancellation of the licence is the correct and preferable decision. The Tribunal affirms the 20 November 2023 decision to cancel Labour Hire Licence no. LHL-03549- Y2P1L held by Brisk Group Pty Ltd. [74] Brisk seeks an order that the Respondent pay its costs of the proceeding. The Respondent submits that no order for costs should be made and that, consistently with the default position under the QCAT Act, each party should bear its own costs. [75] For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the interests of justice require any order for costs. Brisk’s application for costs is refused, and each party will bear its own costs of the proceeding. [76] Brisk’s claim for costs faces an immediate and, in the Tribunal’s view, substantive difficulty in that it has been unsuccessful. The Tribunal has affirmed the cancellation decision on each ground. While Brisk points to its success in obtaining a stay of the cancellation decision, that success was interlocutory in character, was directed to 42 HR Act, sub 13(2). -- 11 of 12 -- 12 preserving the status quo pending the determination of the review, and was in substantial part facilitated by the Chief Executive’s consent. The grant of a stay on the lower threshold of an arguable case says nothing about the ultimate merits, which have now been determined against Brisk. It does not supply a basis for a final costs order in Brisk’s favour. [77] The remaining question is whether the Chief Executive, as the successful party, should have an order for costs against Brisk. The Chief Executive does not press for such an order, and in the Tribunal’s view that position is the correct one. Considering the sub 102(3) factors, the interests of justice do not require a departure from the default position in s 100 in either direction. -- 12 of 12 --