Casella v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2026] QCAT 202

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Casella v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2026] QCAT 202 PARTIES: JAMES CASELLA (applicant) v QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: GAR139-25 MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters HEARING DATE: On the papers DELIVERED ON: 30 April 2026 DECISION OF: Member Roney KC ORDERS: The application to set aside the decision be allowed and return the matter for reconsideration to the Respondent and direct that the Respondent conduct a further review of the application, the evidence and the conclusions it has reached. I direct that the Respondent give further and detailed consideration to the material set out in the Applicant’s reply material, as summarised in the reasons under the heading “the Applicant’s case”, and any further material that he chooses to provide and further that the Applicant provide any further material he seeks to rely on to the Respondent within 60 days of the date of this order. I grant the parties liberty to apply in respect of any other consequential or other orders which might be required to be made. CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – BUILDERS – LICENCES AND REGISTRATION – where application made for contractor's licence in the class of ‘Builder Restricted to Kitchen, Bathroom and Laundry Installation’ – whether requisite two-year period of experience had accrued – where complex -- 1 of 23 -- 2 disputed issues of fact to be determined without a full hearing and on the papers Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 3, s 31 Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld), Schedule 2, Part 7 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20, s 23, s 24, s 28(3) Fane v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2017] QCAT 59 Harley v Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2012] QCAT 620 Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland [2010] QCATA 58 Meyer v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2023] QCAT 24 Phillips v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCAT 159 Reed v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2025] QCAT 447 Saunders v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2017] QCAT 318 APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicant: Self-represented Respondent: Self-represented REASONS FOR DECISION How did this matter came for review on a hearing on the papers? [1] The Applicant holds a ‘Nominee Supervisor’ and ‘Trade Contractors Licence’ issued under the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (‘QBCC Act’), being licence number 1310320, in the classes of ‘Fire Protection - Water-Based Fire System Stream - Install and Maintain - Restricted to Commercial and Industrial Types’; ‘Irrigation’; ‘Metal Fascias and Gutters’; ‘Plumbing and Drainage’; and ‘Roof and Wall Cladding’. [2] On 10 September 2024, the Applicant applied for a contractor’s licence in the class of ‘Builder Restricted to Kitchen, Bathroom and Laundry Installation’ which included the builder and designer experience form completed by the Applicant, as well as a body of other supporting material such as: (b) a copy of his certificate of completion of a Certificate Ill in Concreting CPC30318 dated 30 July 2021 and issued by Ascent Training Solutions Pty Ltd; -- 2 of 23 -- 3 (c) a copy of an academic history issued by Ascent Training Solutions Pty Ltd evidencing the Applicant's completion of a Certificate Ill in Concreting on 9 July 2021; (d) a copy of his academic history issued by TAFE Queensland dated 12 April 2024 confirming the Applicant's completion of the remaining units of competency for a Certificate IV in Building and Construction (Building) CPCCBC40120 on 15 November 2023; (e) a statement of attainment of a 'Manage finances for new business ventures BSBESB407' course in his name issued by Blue Dog Training dated 28 August 2024; (f) a summary of the Applicant's self-managed and delivered projects. [3] On 3 December 2024, the Commission notified the Applicant that it had decided to reject the application for a contractor’s licence in the class sought because: (a) the Applicant's accepted experience for the licence class equated to only 22 months not the required 24 months; and (b) additional experience forms as requested by the Commission were not provided; [4] On 12 December 2024, the Applicant applied for an internal review of the 3 December 2024 decision and with the application he supplied some new material comprising evidence of experience form dated 13 November 2024 and photographs of site work. [5] In its internal review decision dated 24 January 2025, the Commission notified the Applicant that it had decided to refuse his application for a contractor licence in that class on the basis that he was short of the required period of experience. I shall return to the reasons given for that refusal. [6] On 14 February 2025 he has sought a review in this Tribunal of that decision. That application was supported by some 500 pages of material. After the detailed reasons for the decision were provided on 25 May 2025, the Applicant then filed a response to what was provided in those reasons on 23 June 2025. On 2 February 2026 the Commission has filed an affidavit from John Klemm who is a Building Inspector in the employ of the Commission. The Applicant then filed a lengthy response in a reply statement filed 20 February 2026. [7] The evidentiary material filed in respect of what is a hearing on the papers runs to almost 1,000 pages. The Applicant’s reply statement alone, with attachments, exceeds 360 pages. [8] It appears that the first order setting this down for a hearing on the papers was made on 14 October 2025. In his reply statement filed 20 February 2026 the Applicant said he wanted a hearing in person and an opportunity for him to cross-examine the Respondent’s witness John Klemm regarding the factual inaccuracies and omissions in his technical assessment. He was not apparently permitted to do that unfortunately because an order had been made already that the hearing be on the papers. [9] In my view to have allowed him to cross-examine the Respondent’s witness would have been an efficient use of the Tribunal’s processes. The resolution of complex factual issues which are disputed by a hearing on the papers and without there being -- 3 of 23 -- 4 an opportunity to challenge where there is factual conflict, is fraught with difficulty. Ultimately, the issue comes down to whether the Applicant has shown in a persuasive way that the facts ought to be determined in his favour as to the extent of his experience. [10] I pause to observe the process that has brought the application for this licence to this point has taken more than two and a half years since it was initiated. The application was under consideration for more than four months before the decision was made to reject it in 2025, and it is over a year since the application was initiated in the Tribunal. [11] Liberally spread within the reasons for rejecting the application, are statements which identify the ways in which the Commission does not accept evidence provided as relevant experience or discounted it or treated it as not demonstrating relevant experience but critically there are also statements that suggest that the Commission has made decisions on how to treat these applications. For example, the idea that “referee reports made by persons who do not hold the same type of licences that applied for are not sufficient to show that he undertook took his roles and responsibilities in a competent manner”. Conceptually a person could undertake roles and responsibilities in a competent manner whether supervised or not and certainly whether supervised by persons who do not hold the same type of licences that applied. [12] In some cases, reference is made to the decision being made on the basis of information not provided by the applicant, implying that at least potentially, it might have been provided if specifically requested. The Applicant complains that this is indeed the case. [13] It is also evident that the statement of reasons on 25 May 2025 goes beyond the reasons referenced in the review decision and adds additional reasons. [14] Then we have the evidence filed in this Tribunal by the Commission, which goes even further to conduct yet a further analysis of what the evidence shows. But that analysis did not take into account the further information which appeared in the applicant’s lengthy statement in reply of 20 February 2026. That leaves that evidence in the statement in reply uncriticized and unresponded to. [15] In my view it is an unsatisfactory state of affairs that the resources of this Tribunal are to be allocated to conducting an on the papers determination of the state of evidence, and as to the extent of satisfaction that may be drawn from it about whether the applicant has met the experience requirements for this class of licence when the Commission has not responded to new evidentiary material and arguments filed in the hope and expectation by the Applicant that it would fill in the gaps in the Applicant’s material. [16] I note also that since the Commission did not embark upon the exercise of deciding whether the financial requirements were met, so that even were the Tribunal to decide that the experience requirements were met, the matter would still be required to be sent back to the Commission to consider those other requirements. -- 4 of 23 -- 5 The Tribunal’s powers and functions upon review [17] On review of the respondent’s decision, the Tribunal must hear and decide the matter by way of a fresh hearing on the merits. The purpose of the review is to produce the correct and preferable decision.1 [18] Section 24 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) provides that upon determining the correct and preferable decision, the Tribunal may:2 (a) confirm or amend the Decision; or (b) set aside the Decision and substitute its own decision; or (c) set aside the Decision and return the matter for reconsideration to the Commission, with the directions the Tribunal considers appropriate. [19] This means that the applicant need not prove any error by the respondent in its original decision – the original decision is not presumed correct.3 [20] In conducting the review, the Tribunal:4 (a) may inform itself in any way it considers appropriate, and must ensure as is practicable that all relevant material is disclosed to the Tribunal to enable it to decide the proceeding with all the relevant facts; (b) is not bound by the rules of evidence, other than to extent the Tribunal adopts the rules, practices or procedures of a court of record; and (c) must observe the rules of natural justice. The legislative scheme and licensing under it [21] The objects of the QBCC Act relevantly include: 3 Objects of Act The objects of this Act are: (a) to regulate the building industry— (i) to ensure the maintenance of proper standards in the industry; and (ii) to achieve a reasonable balance between the interests of building contractors and consumers; [22] Part 3 of the QBCC Act is entitled ‘Licensing’ and regulates the granting of licences by the Commission for the performance of “building work”. Division 1 of part 3 is entitled ‘Classes of licences’. Under this division, the Commission may issue licences in a number of grades and includes relevantly here a contractor's licence (to an individual or a company) under section 30. 1 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 20. 2 Ibid s 24. 3 Harley v Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2012] QCAT 620, [8], citing with approval Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland [2010] QCATA 58, [9]. 4 QCAT Act s 28(3). -- 5 of 23 -- 6 [23] Section 31 of the QBCC Act provides for the circumstances under which an individual or a company is entitled to a contractor's licence. The relevant provisions with respect to an individual are as follows: 31 Entitlement to contractor's licence (1) A person (not being a company) is entitled to a contractor's licence if the commission is, on application by that person, satisfied that- (a) the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold the licence; and (b) the applicant has the qualifications end experience required by regulation in relation to a licence of the relevant class; and (c) the applicant satisfies the relevant financial requirements stated in the board's policies; and (d) the applicant can lawfully work in Queensland; and (e) the applicant is not an excluded individual for a relevant event or a permanently excluded individual; and (f) the applicant is not a disqualified individual; and (g) the applicant is not a banned individual; and (h) the applicant does not have an unpaid judgment debt for an amount the commission may recover under section 71. [24] Schedule 2 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld) (‘Regulation’) establishes the grades of licence into classes of licences. For example, a person may apply for a contractor’s grade of licence in the class of ‘Builder – Open’. [25] The Regulation then provides what is the scope of work for a licence of a particular class and mandates the technical, experiential and financial requirements to hold a particular licence of that class. [26] The scope of work covered by technical qualifications and experience required for a contractor’s licence in the class sought here of ‘Builder Restricted to Kitchen, Bathroom and Laundry Installation’ (which I shall refer to as the relevant licence requirements) are prescribed by part 7 of schedule 2. They are: 1 Licence class Builder restricted to kitchen, bathroom and laundry installation. 2 Scope of work (1) Install, refurbish, restore and repair a kitchen, bathroom or laundry onsite in— (a) a class 1 or class 10 building; or (b) classes 2 to 9 buildings if the gross floor area of the kitchen, bathroom or laundry is not more than 50m 2. (2) Prepare plans and specifications that are— (a) for the licensee's personal use; or -- 6 of 23 -- 7 (b) for use in building work to be performed by the licensee personally. (3) However, the scope of work does not include— (a) building work that may affect the structural performance of the building; or (b) personally carrying out any building work for which— (i) a fire protection licence or mechanical services licence. is required; or (ii) an occupational licence is required unless the licensee holds the occupational licence. 3 Technical qualifications—contractor's and nominee supervisor's licences The technical qualifications stated in the technical qualifications document for the licence class applied for. 4 Technical qualifications—site supervisor's licence The technical qualifications stated in the technical qualifications document for the licence class applied for. 5 Experience requirements The experience requirements are the following— (a) for a person who has a technical qualification required under part 3, 15, 16, 18, 34, 37, 39, 40, 43 to 46, 50, 54, 58 or 59—2 years experience in— (i) the scope of work for the class; or (ii) other work the commission is satisfied is at least equivalent to experience in the scope of work for the class; (b) otherwise—4 years experience in— (i) the scope of work for the class; or (ii) other work the commission is satisfied is at least equivalent to experience in the scope of work for the class. 6 Financial requirements The relevant minimum financial requirements. [27] It follows that in order to grant a contractor's licence in the class sought to the Applicant, the Commission was required to be satisfied of each of the following: (a) the Applicant holds the technical qualifications prescribed by in the Licence Requirements (i.e. section 3 of part 7 of schedule 2 of the Regulation and part 7 of the Qualifications Policy for a contractor's grade of licence); (b) the Applicant meets the experience requirements prescribed by the Licence Requirements (i.e. section 5 of part 7 of schedule 2 of the Regulation); -- 7 of 23 -- 8 (c) the Applicant meets the financial requirements prescribed by the MFR Regulation for the relevant financial category; and (d) the Applicant has otherwise met the Additional Requirements. [28] The technical qualifications for licensing issue loom large in this application. [29] Section 3 of the Licence Requirements provides that the technical qualifications required for an applicant to qualify for a contractor's licence in the class of ‘Builder – Restricted to Kitchen, Bathroom and Laundry Installation’ are stated in the “technical qualifications document”. Schedule 8 of the Regulation defines “technical qualifications document” as meaning the document called ‘Technical Qualifications for Licensing’ made by the chief executive and published on the department's website. [30] The “technical qualifications document” is entitled ‘Technical qualifications for licencing’ version 9, current as at December 2022, and is published by the Department of Housing, Local Government, Planning and Public Works. The Qualifications Policy relevantly states that the technical qualifications required for a contractor’s grade licence in the class of ‘Builder Restricted to Kitchen, Bathroom and Laundry Installation’ are as follows: Contractor and nominee supervisor licences Any one of the following— (a) successful completion of the following units of competency from Certificate IV in Building and Construction CPC40120— (i) Manage work health and safety in the building and construction workplace CPCCBC4002; (ii) Select, prepare and administer a construction contract CPCCBC4003; (iii) Identify and produce estimated costs for building and construction projects CPCCBC4004; (iv) Select, procure. and store construction materials for building and construction projects CPCCBC4006; (v) Supervise site communication and administration processes for building and construction projects CPCCBC4008; (vi) Apply legal requirements to building and construction projects CPCCBC4009; (vii) Manage finances for new business ventures BSBESB407. (b) successful completion of a course or units of competency of a course the commission considers is at least equivalent to the units of competency mentioned in paragraph (a); (c) a recognition certificate as a builder qualified to carry out the scope of work for the licence class; · (d) a qualification or statement of attainment of required competency for the class of licence. -- 8 of 23 -- 9 [31] Section 5 of the Licence Requirements provides that the following experience is necessary for an applicant to qualify for a contractor’s licence in the class of Builder Restricted to Kitchen, Bathroom and Laundry Installation: The experience requirements are the following— (a) for a person who has a technical qualification required under part 3, 15, 16, 18, 34, 37, 39, 40, 43 to 46, 50, 54, 58 or 59—2 years experience in— (i) the scope of work for the class; or (ii) other work the commission is satisfied is at least equivalent to experience in the scope of work for the class; (b) otherwise—4 years experience in— (i) the scope of work for the class; or (ii) other work the commission is satisfied is at least equivalent to experience in the scope of work for the class. [32] Accordingly, pursuant to the Licence Requirements (i.e. schedule 2, part 7, section 5 of the Regulation) the Applicant is required to have at least two (2) years’ experience in the scope of work for ‘Builder – Restricted to Kitchen, Bathroom and Laundry Installation’, and which is referred to in the material by the abbreviation “KBL Installation SOW”. [33] There are also financial requirements however they are not relevant here as they did not found the basis for the decision under review. [34] Sections 33 and 34 of the QBCC Act relevantly provides for the process of making and deciding applications for licences and section 16 of the Regulation requires an application for a licence to be accompanied by documentary evidence, satisfactory to the Commission, of the Applicant’s experience. Relevant Tribunal Decisions on the correct approach to the experience requirements [35] In Saunders v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2017] QCAT 318, [34] Member Gardiner held that: The granting of a builder’s licence allows the builder freedom to build unsupervised. The objects of the QBCC Act include ensuring the maintenance of proper standards in the industry. It follows that the standard of experience and the breadth of experience required to licence a builder who seeks to be responsible to the Queensland community should be higher than the learning phase of a builder’s career. [36] In Phillips v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCAT 159, [15] Member Holzberger held that: … The maintenance of proper standards requires in my view more than merely demonstrating employment as a tradesman or labourer on building sites for the requisite period. Rather it requires an applicant to demonstrate that he has over that period carried out under supervision of a licensed person the types of tasks and responsibilities that he will be permitted to undertake without such supervision should his licence be granted. -- 9 of 23 -- 10 [37] In Meyer v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2023] QCAT 24, [11] Member Olding addressed the experience requirement for a Building Design licence saying: … I take the view that the Tribunal must ask whether, viewed practically, the experience as a whole would be properly characterised as at least two years of experience across the entirety of the specified scope of work. [38] In Reed v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2025] QCAT 447 Member King Scott held under the heading “The Proper Construction of the Experience Requirement” that: [18] I accept the Applicant’s submission that Schedule 2, Part 10 does not expressly state that an applicant must demonstrate experience in each and every item of the scope of work. If the legislature had intended to impose such a requirement, it could have done so explicitly. [19] However, I also accept that the task is not merely to count years of employment in the building industry. The question is whether the Applicant has demonstrated experience that, viewed practically and as a whole, properly constitutes four years’ experience in the scope of work for the BRSL Licence class. [20] This construction is consistent with: (a) The objects of the QBCC Act, particularly ensuring maintenance of proper standards. (b) The practical approach required by Gill. (c) Section 35(2) of the QBCC Act, which contemplates that ordinarily an applicant should have adequate experience across the scope of work. (d) The provision in section 5(b)(ii) for “equivalent” experience, suggesting some flexibility. [21] The experience requirement must be assessed having regard to the fact that, once licensed, the holder may undertake any work within the scope without supervision. The Tribunal must be satisfied that the Applicant has sufficient breadth and depth of experience to competently and safely undertake the range of work encompassed by the licence. [22] Significantly, Mr Klemm’s own evidence supports a flexible approach. When asked whether failure to build a pergola would disqualify an applicant, he stated that if the applicant had the knowledge to supervise other trades in building that pergola, it would not preclude them from holding the licence.10 This suggests experience need not be demonstrated in every item, but the Applicant must show sufficient experience across the scope to safely undertake or supervise the work. [39] I adopt and apply those principles. Significantly, Mr Klemm was the witness in that case as he is here. The critical but not the only question is whether the Applicant has demonstrated experience that, viewed practically and as a whole, properly constitutes two years’ experience in the scope of work for the relevant licence. -- 10 of 23 -- 11 The decision to reject the application [40] After the licence application was made here, on 31 October 2024, the Commission requested further information from the Applicant in respect of the Application, namely evidence of 24 months of experience on the approved experience form and at least three referee reports in support of the Applicant’s experience. [41] After requests for extensions were dealt with, on 17 November 2024, the Applicant provided further information comprising the evidence of experience form completed by the Applicant, a referee report from Mr Dib Symin dated 13 November 2024 and an undated reference from Ms Rosemary Symin. Later that month on 25 November 2024, he provided a methodology of a new bathroom/kitchen laundry (wet area) construction prepared by himself. [42] On 3 December 2024, the Commission notified the Applicant that it had decided to reject the application for a contractor’s licence in the class of ‘Builder -Restricted to Kitchen, Bathroom and Laundry Installation’ had been refused because the Applicant’s accepted experience equated to only 22 months not 24 months and additional experience forms as requested by the Commission were not provided. [43] As I have said on 12 December 2024, the Applicant applied for an internal review of the 3 December 2024 decision and with the application he supplied some new material comprising the evidence of experience form dated 13 November 2024 and photographs of site work. The internal review application was rejected for the reasons noted earlier. [44] The Commission says that it was and is satisfied the Applicant holds the technical qualifications prescribed by the Licence Requirements for a contractor’s licence in the relevant class by schedule 2, part 7, section 3 of the Regulation and part 7 of the Qualifications Policy for a contractor’s grade of licence and is also satisfied that the Applicant otherwise meets the Additional Requirements for a licence application contained in section 31(1) of the QBCC Act. [45] The Commission says that after carefully examining the Applicant’s experience “practically, and as a whole”, the Commission decided that it could not categorise the experience as being at least two years across the entirety of the Kitchen, Bathroom and Laundry Installation scope of work, or experience that is at least equivalent to the Kitchen, Bathroom and Laundry Installation scope of work. Therefore, the Commission was and remains unsatisfied that the Applicant has demonstrated sufficient experience in the KBL Installation SOW such that a licence should be granted. [46] In the reasons given for that decision the Commission found that the Applicant relied upon the specific experience outlined below in support of his Application, but which was not accepted by the Commission for specified reasons which I shall now deal with. The Quarry Road, Dundas Valley job [47] First in relation to the work at 9-11 Quarry Road, Dundas Valley the Commission says: (a) In relation to 9-11 Quarry Road, Dundas Valley (which it says was “10 months from November 2010 to August 2012” but which the Applicant says was 22 Months, and which inclusive, it clearly is) the Applicant -- 11 of 23 -- 12 states this project was design and construction of eight, three storey townhouses and double basement parking, with the Applicant being employed as a 'Developer, Builder and Project Manager' by Building Corp Australia Pty Ltd. However, the Commission did not accept this project as being relevant experience within the KBL Installation SOW because: (i) The experience was gained prior to the Applicant obtaining his Certificate IV in Building and Construction CPC40120 on 15 November 2023; (ii) The Applicant's roles and responsibilities for this project related to managing trades, including cabinetry, electrical and concreting, with the provision of plumbing services and arranging waterproofing being work that only forms a part of the KBL Installation SOW. Specifically, the Applicant's evidence does not indicate any experience in refurbishing, restoring or repairing a kitchen, bathroom or laundry. Accordingly, the Commission was not satisfied the Applicant has demonstrated experience in all aspects of the KBL Installation SOW; (iii) The referee report provided for this project was provided by Mr Symin. The Symin Report states the Applicant was engaged by Building Corp Australia Pty Ltd as a 'Site Supervisor' and described the following roles and duties performed by the Applicant on the project: (A) heading a team of employees and subcontractors to carry out site establishing, including site fencing and making safe the site; (B) organising temporary power and water, including site amenities; (C) installing site safety signage consistent with workplace health and safety requirements; (D) managing and supervising civil and earthworks contractors; (E) personally, completing plumbing and drainage works; (F) assisting with project sales marketing; and (G) assisting with original quantity surveying, cost management, contract management and obtaining quotations throughout the project. The Symin Report confirmed the experience outlined by the Applicant in respect of this project. However, the Commission considered that the experience confirmed by the Symin Report was not relevant to the KBL Installation SOW. [48] To further confuse the matter, Mr Klemm for the Respondent says that the Applicant stated that this project occurred between November 2010 and August 2012, representing approximately 21 months of experience. Not 10, not 22, but 21. [49] However, the experience relied upon in relation to this project was gained prior to the Applicant obtaining his Certificate IV in Building and Construction on 15 November 2023. -- 12 of 23 -- 13 The Manning Parade, Dundas Valley job [50] Secondly in relation to the work at 3 Manning Parade, Dundas Valley (three months: September 2024 to November 2024) the Commission says that: The Applicant states this project was construction of a double story, with the Applicant being employed as a 'Project Manager' by Building Corp Australia Pty Ltd. However, the Commission did not accept this project as being relevant experience within the KBL Installation SOW because: (i) the Applicant's roles and responsibilities for this project did not indicate experience relevant to the KBL Installation SOW. The Applicant's experience indicates he assisted with quantity surveying, erection of temporary fencing and site amenities, supervision of steel and concrete works, preparation of plans and personal installation of plumbing and drainage works. Accordingly, the Commission was not satisfied the Applicant has demonstrated experience in all aspects of the KBL Installation SOW; (ii) the referee report provided for this project was provided by Mr Symin. The Symin Report states the Applicant was engaged by Building Corp Australia Pty Ltd on the project and stated "[the Applicant] has been working with me on this site from the stat to gain further experience in managing, administration and supervision of trades. [The Applicant] will also continue gaining experience on my jobs in the· future". The Symin Report does not provide any further information in relation to this project. (iii) Whilst the Symin Report confirmed the experience outlined by the Applicant in respect of this project, the Commission considered that the experience confirmed by the Symin Report was not relevant to the KBL Installation SOW. (iv) Additionally, the Commission's records indicate that Mr Symin does not hold a licence issued by the Commission. Whilst not raised in the Original Decision or the Decision, the Commission does not consider referee reports provided by persons who do not hold the same type of licence as that applied for by the Applicant (or a licence of a higher class) to be sufficient to demonstrate that the Applicant undertook his roles and responsibilities for the project in a competent manner. The additional project history [51] Thirdly in relation to his additional project history on various dates, the Commission concluded that: In support of the Application, the Applicant provided the Project History Summary, providing brief descriptions of several further projects in which the Applicant was involved. However, the Commission did not consider the information outlined in the Project History Summary as experience contributing to the Experience Requirement for the KBL Installation SOW, as the Applicant did not provide further information detailing his roles and duties on the listed projects. [52] By way of summary of the overall position, the Commission says: -- 13 of 23 -- 14 46. In summary, whilst it is clear that the Applicant has been working in the building industry for a number of years, the information provided substantially lacks verified experience in KBL Installation SOW. 47. Experience for the purpose of licensing applications needs to be of a high standard. The question of whether specific experience reaches this threshold must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, when reviewing the Applicants experience practically, and as a whole, the Commission cannot properly categorise the experience as being at least two (2) years across the entirety of the KBL Installation SOW, or experience that is at least equivalent to the KBL Installation SOW. Therefore, the Commission is not satisfied that the Applicant has demonstrated sufficient experience in the KBL Installation SOW such that a licence should be granted. [53] The Applicant challenges these or some of these factual findings. [54] On 2 February 2026 the Commission filed an affidavit from John Klemm who is a Building Inspector in the employ of the Commission. That affidavit was filed after and in response to the Applicant’s submissions and evidence which were filed on 23 June 2025, but before his material in reply was filed on 20 February 2026. He has significant qualifications and some 40 years’ experience both in the private construction industry and also at the Commission where he has been since 2013 including as the Manager of Technical Services for the Commission. [55] Mr Klemm swears, and I accept, that he assessed the Applicant’s experience as outlined in the Application, the review Application and in the additional material filed in the Tribunal on 4 March 2023 and 23 June 2025. [56] The Applicant challenges those findings of fact and the application of the requirements to them. The Applicant’s case [57] The Applicant submits that the Respondent’s assessment is fundamentally flawed because there has been a failure to consider technical documentation (the Building Methodology Statement), errors in calculating the 24-month experience threshold, a misinterpretation of “site supervision” as a “minor” component of construction and a failure to recognise interstate licensing standards under Mutual Recognition. [58] He says that he has met the two years/24 months experience in the scope of work requirement because the Respondent has already quantified the Applicant’s experience on the Quarry Road Project. He says that it can be seen from the Respondent’s Statement of Reasons, the Commission’s own assessment spreadsheet records this project as 22 months of experience. He suggests that the QBCC has stated 10 months experience there: ... but should have been stated as 22 months also I don't understand why I have been credited 22 months at the time of the application but then that has been retracted at the time of the IRU decision included in the QBCC statement of reasons and SOR. As this was a complete construction from a standalone dwelling being demolished and developed into 8 x 3 story townhouses with a kitchen, Laundry and 2.5 bathrooms in each, equals 20 bathrooms, 8 kitchens and 8 Laundries. -- 14 of 23 -- 15 [59] He says that he provided evidence of a further two months of Site Supervision at Manning Parade, Dundas, which was a duplex construction. [60] He says that at paragraph 45(d), Mr Klemm asserts that the Applicant failed to reference Australian Standards or the National Construction Code (‘NCC’). He says this is a demonstrable error of fact and that his original submission included a ‘Building Methodology Statement’ (Referenced in his evidence 03 page 35–37 of Applicant’s Bundle) and that this document explicitly details compliance with AS 3740 (Waterproofing), AS 3958 (Tiling), and AS/NZS 3500 (Plumbing). He says that the Respondent’s failure to read or acknowledge this document represents “a breach of procedural fairness and invalidates the claim that the Applicant lacks a technical understanding of the KBL scope”. [61] On the issue he calls “misinterpretation of site supervision as a ‘minor’ component of construction”, he contends that the Respondent characterises his role as “minor” because he was a journeyman plumber while he was supervising the Quarry Road project. The Applicant refutes this and says that while technically qualified as a plumber, the Applicant was employed and acted as a site supervisor. As such he was responsible for the coordination of all trades, including the management of substrate preparation and structural coordination for wet areas from start to finish. He says that the 22 months at Quarry Road involved the supervision of 20 bathrooms, eight kitchens, and eight laundries. The two months at Manning Parade involved the management and supervision of two duplex units. This represents a high-volume, high-complexity supervisory role. [62] The Applicant submits that in addition to the 24 months of Site Supervision, he has completed over 35 bathroom upgrades in a plumbing and drainage capacity (Referring to Annexure JK-3). As regards the Scope of his Technical Mastery, his experience is supplemented by the extensive documentation provided in the Applicant’s initial response to the QBCC SOR. This includes: • Contract Administration: Experience in the commercial and administrative side of construction, plumbing, roofing, and concreting. this proves an understanding of project lifecycle, documentation, and legislative compliance. • Structural & Envelope Works: Hands-on experience in Roofing, Concreting, and Plumbing. 5.3 Technical Integration: The Respondent dismisses this as "ancillary." However, the Applicant submits that the KBL scope does not exist in a vacuum. • The Building Envelope: Knowledge of plumbing, roofing, and concreting is essential for understanding water ingress and structural movement-three of the primary components of bathroom failure. • AS 3740 & NCC Mastery: As the lead on these projects, the Applicant was responsible for the technical interface between the plumbing penetrations, the concrete substrate, and the waterproofing membrane. [63] The Applicant submits that at paragraph 45(e) of his statement, Mr Klemm dismisses the standing of the Applicant’s referees on the basis that they do not hold QBCC issued licenses. He says that is an error in law. He says that he has provided evidence that they held NSW Builder Contractor Licences, referenced at page 29–34 of Applicant’s Bundle. He says that pursuant to the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth), -- 15 of 23 -- 16 a person licensed for an occupation in one State is entitled to be recognised for the equivalent occupation in another State. [64] The Applicant submits that Mr Klemm has reached a conclusion regarding “unsuitability” without performing a verification of the NSW licenses provided. The NSW “Builder” license class is an equivalent or higher standard to the “restricted” QBCC KBL licence. He says that to discount experience gained under an interstate Builder’s Licence, or to dismiss the opinions of referees who hold interstate licenses, is a failure to recognise the national standard of competency required by Australian law. [65] He contends that both NSW referees explicitly support the Applicant’s suitability for the KBL licence based on their direct observation of his work (referenced at page 18 and page 38 of Applicant’s Bundle). These referees, having observed the Applicant’s work across high-volume projects, possess the professional standing to judge the Applicant’s competency against the NCC standards. He submits that to ignore these professional endorsements is to ignore the primary purpose of the referee system. [66] On the topic of the mastery of the “Critical Path” he says that Mr Klemm suggests that plumbing experience is separate from building experience. The Applicant refutes this as a fundamental misunderstanding of bathroom construction. On this issue he submits that: • Technical Integration: In a KBL project, the plumbing and drainage "rough-in" encompassed the structural set-out of the cabinetry and the integrity of the waterproofing. • The "Bridge": Having managed the plumbing for over 35 bathrooms (with invoices and photos for reference) and supervised the building of 22 others, the Applicant possesses a dual-competency that a standard builder lacks. [67] On the topic of the nature of the projects he says he was involved in (High-Density vs. Domestic), he submits that Mr Klemm dismisses the projects as “minor” in the context of the larger site but he contends that as for Compliance Rigour, commercial and multi-unit projects require strict adherence to NCC requirements, which are more stringent than standard residential renovations. He says in relation to the volume of repetition that successfully supervising eight three-storey townhouses at Quarry Road demonstrates a mastery of Quality Assurance (‘QA’) that is superior to a one- off domestic renovation. He contends in relation to the Recognition of Complementary Trades that the QBCC Regulation allows for the recognition of “work of a similar nature”. Site Supervision and technical trade mastery (Plumbing and Drainage) are the two primary pillars of a KBL license. [68] The Applicant maintains that the Respondent has applied an arbitrary “percentage” metric to his work that is not found in the QBCC Act. [69] The Applicant formally requested a physical hearing at the Brisbane Registry to cross-examine John Klemm regarding the factual inaccuracies and omissions in his technical assessment. He was not apparently permitted to do that unfortunately because an order had been made already that the hearing be on the papers. The Respondent’s case and the evidence of John Klemm [70] As I have noted the Commission has filed an affidavit from John Klemm who is a Building Inspector in the employ of the Commission. He has not produced an -- 16 of 23 -- 17 affidavit which responds to what the Applicant said in his statement dated 20 February 2026. [71] The Respondent filed no submissions which relied on that affidavit nor set out what the Respondent’s case was in response to what the Applicant said in his statement dated 20 February 2026, except to the extent that it could be derived from that affidavit and the statement of reasons. [72] Mr Klemm concluded that the Applicant’s referees, Mr Dib Symin and Ms Rosemary Symin, do not hold a licence issued by the Commission. He does not say why that would be a relevant factor if they held a relevant licence in another State where the work was done. In my view, there is no obvious reason to assume that a referee needs to be a licence holder in QLD. [73] He says that the references provided by Mr Symin, Ms Symin and Michael Kirkpatrick do not demonstrate that the Applicant has obtained experience relevant to the Kitchen, Bathroom and Laundry Installation scope of work. [74] Mr Klemm examined the projects which the Applicant relies on to demonstrate experience in the Kitchen, Bathroom and Laundry Installation scope of work. [75] He says that section 16(1)(b)(i) of the QBCC Regulation requires an application for a licence to be accompanied by documentary evidence, satisfactory to the Commission, of the Applicant’s experience. He says, although the basis for it is not identified, that the “demonstrated experience should also be verifiable and validated by a licensed person holding the same class or higher than that being applied for. In the Application, a referee is required to provide information that supports an applicant’s experience and performance”. [76] Mr Klemm says and I accept that on the proper construction of the requirements the KBL Installation SOW requires an applicant to demonstrate experience in installing, refurbishing, restoring and repairing a kitchen, bathroom or laundry on-site. [77] Mr Klemm refers to the Quarry Road Project and the Applicant’s described roles and responsibilities as including managing trades, including cabinetry, electrical and concreting, placing temporary fencing and safety signage and administering trade contracts and quotations. He notes that in the Applicant’s Submissions in Response, he submits that the Quarry Road Project involved installation of multiple bathrooms. [78] He says that: While it is accepted that such a complex would likely contain multiple kitchens, bathrooms and laundries, the construction of these areas only form a minor percentage of the overall project. the material provided is not sufficiently detailed regarding his experience in the entire KBL Installation SOW. Rather, it is apparent the Applicant's roles and responsibilities on the Quarry Road Project were more administrative in nature and any relevant experience provided was restricted to plumbing and drainage works only. [79] In that regard Mr Klemm identifies what the Applicant’s referee, Mr Symin, confirmed was the Applicant’s experience on this project and then concludes that: 34. While Mr Symin's reference is consistent with the Applicant's described- experience on this project, no specific information of the Applicant's -- 17 of 23 -- 18 experience relevant to installing, refurbishing, restoring and repairing a kitchen, bathroom or laundry on-site is provided. 35. Overall, the material provided by the Applicant in relation to the Quarry Road Project does not provide sufficient detail in relation to his involvement in installing, refurbishing, restoring and repairing a kitchen, bathroom or laundry on-site to contribute towards experience relevant to the KBL Installation SOW, rather it is administrative in nature or restricted to plumbing and drainage works only. [80] In short, this is an observation about the state of the evidence, not the actuality of the situation. [81] The Applicant relied on the Manning Parade Project saying it occurred between September 2024 to November 2024, representing approximately three (3) months of experience. He said the months at Manning Parade involved the management and supervision of two duplex units and this represented a high-volume, high-complexity supervisory role. [82] Mr Klemm says: 37. The Applicant described his roles and responsibilities on the Manning Parade Project as including quantity surveying, erection of temporary fencing and site amenities, supervision of steel and concrete works, preparation and review of plans and personal installation of plumbing and drainage works. 38. The reference provided by Mr Symin confirmed the Applicant was engaged by Building Corp throughout the duration of the Manning Parade Project. However, Mr Symin did not provide detailed information in relation to the Applicant's roles, responsibilities and duties on this project. 39. Accordingly, I consider the information provided by the Applicant in relation to the Manning Parade Project is not sufficiently detailed to demonstrate his experience relevant to the KBL Installation licence. Rather the Applicant's experience was primarily · in relation to plumbing and drainage works only and does not demonstrate sufficient experience across the entire KBL Installation SOW. [83] Again, primarily this is an observation about the state of the evidence. [84] He goes on to say in relation to these two projects: While the Applicant's material in relation to the Quarry Road Project and the Manning Parade Project indicate that he performed plumbing and drainage works onsite, I am not satisfied that this experience is equivalent to experience in the KBL Installation SOW as no further detail has been provided in relation to this work and no reference made to relevant· technical standards for kitchen, bathroom and laundry installation. [85] He also considered the additional projects relied upon by the Applicant as demonstrating relevant experience in the Project History Summary and concluded that: (a) the Project History summary only provides brief descriptions and does not provide further information as to the Applicant's roles, responsibilities and duties on each of the projects; and -- 18 of 23 -- 19 (b) the projects as described indicate the Applicant's experience was primarily in relation to plumbing and drainage works and do not demonstrate the Applicant's experience across the KBL Installation SOW. [86] In summary then he says that: (a) the information provided in relation to the Applicant's experience, namely the Quarry Road Project, the Manning Parade Project and the Additional Projects does not demonstrate that the Applicant has gained two (2) years' experience across all aspects of the KBL Installation SOW; (b) while the Applicant submits that the Quarry Road Project involved installation of multiple bathrooms as part of the project, the material provided does not detail the specific stages, or the Applicant's responsibilities, roles and duties in relation to this work; (c) the work pertaining to the installation of kitchens, bathrooms and laundries only represents a relatively small part of the Quarry Road Project and Manning Parade Project and any relevant experience would not equate to the total time periods of the projects as claimed by. the Applicant; (d) the Applicant's material in respect of the Quarry Road Project and the Manning Parade Project makes no reference to relevant technical requirements for kitchen, bathroom and laundry installation, such as: (i) Australian Standards (AS) 37 40-2021 Waterproofing of domestic wet areas; (ii) AS 3958-2023 Installation of ceramic sandstone tiles; and (iii) AS 4386-2018 Cabinetry in the built-in environment - Commercial and domestic. (e) Mr Symin and Ms Symin do not hold licences issued by the Commission and the Commission does not consider referee reports provided by persons who do not hold the same type of licence as that applied for by the Applicant (or a licence of a higher class) to be sufficient to demonstrate that the Applicant undertook his roles and responsibilities for the project in a competent manner. [87] In the decision of Ryan Peters, Senior Review Officer, on 24 January 2025, the following appears: 17. To satisfy the experience requirements to obtain a Builder Restricted To Kitchen, Bathroom and Laundry Installation Contractor licence, it is the procedural position of QBCC that applicants must demonstrate their experience in all aspects of the Builder Restricted To Kitchen, Bathroom and Laundry Installation scope of work or equivalent. 18. It is also the procedural position of QBCC that the demonstrated experience must be validated by a licensed builder holding the same licence class or higher as that being applied for. The referee is required to provide information that supports the applicants experience and performance and details should include: • the site details for each project -- 19 of 23 -- 20 • the principal contractor or employer for each project • the supervisor for each project • the scope of work for each project • the actual time the applicant spent on the job • the applicant’s position, role, and responsibilities for each project (including any supervision, coordination of trades and services, advisory and administrative responsibilities and any hands-on building work performed) • the applicant’s knowledge, experience and level of competency in: o interpreting and understanding plans o building codes and standards o setting out building projects o contract administration o ensuring projects are on time and within budget o workplace health and safety obligations o managing, co-ordinating and interacting with other people on site (including ability to resolve site issues) o maintaining quality control of work performed by trades on site. 22. An important issue of relevance concerns experience gained by the Applicant prior to obtaining the required technical qualification on 15 November 2023. It is the procedural position of QBCC that experience gained as part of a training program, apprenticeship, or study towards a qualification and/or experience gained prior to the qualification being obtained is not acceptable. In Saunders v QBCC [2017] QCAT 318, Member Gardiner found that a licence applicant must have the technical qualifications to exercise the required skill to acquire the practical experience necessary to support a licence application. After considering all relevant submissions, all other evidence regarding the Applicant's circumstances, and the relevant law, I do not accept that experience gained by the Applicant prior to 15 November 2023 may be used to support the Licence Application [88] This seems to me to be an extremely onerous set of requirements determined by the adoption of a procedural position. Also to require that applicants must demonstrate their experience in all aspects of the Builder Restricted To Kitchen, Bathroom and Laundry Installation scope of work is inconsistent with what was said in Reed v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2025] QCAT 447 to which I have already made reference. [89] There is no reference in Mr Peters’ reasons to any decision that says that experience gained as part of a training program, apprenticeship, or study towards a qualification and/or experience gained prior to the qualification being obtained is not acceptable. The comment in Saunders v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2017] QCAT 318, at [34] was about a builder’s licence. It was said that “the standard of experience and the breadth of experience required to licence a builder who seeks -- 20 of 23 -- 21 to be responsible to the Queensland community should be higher than the learning phase of a builder’s career”. That is talking about someone in the learning phase of a builder’s career, not whether experience gained as part of a training program, apprenticeship, or study towards a specific qualification and/or experience gained prior to the qualification being obtained is not acceptable. [90] Here, the qualification being referenced was his successful completion at TAFE of the remaining units of competency from Certificate IV in Building and Construction CPC40120 on 15 November 2023. But it is not as if he has had no prior building experience before completing that course. The Applicant has long held a Plumber and Drainer licence issued under the Plumbing and Drainage Act 2018 (Qld). The Applicant already holds a ‘Nominee Supervisor’ and ‘Trade Contractors Licence’. He is now approaching 40 years of age. [91] I have said already that it is an unsatisfactory state of affairs that the resources of this Tribunal are to be allocated to conducting an on the papers determination when the Commission has not responded to the latest material filed by the Applicant to fill in the gaps in the Applicant’s material in support of showing he has the requisite experience. [92] I have said already that since the Commission did not embark upon the exercise of deciding whether the financial requirements were met, even were I to decide that the experience requirements were met, the matter would still be required to be sent back to the Commission to consider those other requirements. [93] It is of concern that whilst on 3 December 2024, the Commission notified the Applicant of its decision, namely that his application for a contractor’s licence had been refused because the Applicant’s accepted experience equated to only 22 months, just two months short, it now appears to want to treat the Quarry Road Project as 10 months or perhaps 21 months, but not treat it as experience at all because the experience relied upon in relation to the project was gained prior to the Applicant obtaining his Certificate IV in Building and Construction on 15 November 2023. The Applicant has this year clarified what he did there, but the Respondent does not respond to that. [94] Also, the Applicant relied on the Manning Parade Project as being between September 2024 to November 2024, representing approximately three months of experience. The Applicant has clarified what he did there but the respondent does not respond to that but says that the reference provided by Mr Symin confirmed the Applicant was engaged by Building Corp throughout the duration of the Manning Parade Project. However, Mr Symin did not provide detailed information in relation to the Applicant’s roles, responsibilities and duties on this project. [95] I am unable to accept that the fact, if it be a fact, that the Applicant’s material in respect of the Quarry Road Project and the Manning Parade Projects make no reference to relevant technical requirements for kitchen, bathroom and laundry installation such as Australian Standards is a material consideration. No such formulaic approach is required for there to be demonstrated experience that, viewed practically and as a whole, properly constitutes two years’ experience in the scope of work. [96] The Authorities I have referenced make clear that it is not necessary that an applicant must demonstrate experience in each and every item of the scope of work. The -- 21 of 23 -- 22 standard of experience and the breadth of experience required to licence a contractor, for example, to engage in kitchen, bathroom and laundry installation kitchens who seeks to be responsible to the Queensland community, should be higher than the learning phase of the contractor’s career. The question is whether the Applicant has demonstrated experience that, viewed practically and as a whole, properly constitutes two years’ experience in the scope of work. It requires an applicant to demonstrate that he has over a period of two years carried out under the supervision of a licensed person, the types of tasks and responsibilities that he will be permitted to undertake without such supervision should his licence be granted. [97] Further, the fact that Mr Symin and Ms Symin do not hold licences issued by the Commission does not seem to me to be a critical or relevant factor if they could verify the scope of the work the Applicant performed, and they were licenced in NSW. [98] Having said that, the application insofar as it seeks a finding that the licence be granted cannot succeed because the evidence is not sufficient to persuade me that the applicant has met the relevant licence requirements. That is not to say that he could not meet the requirements. It is impossible to resolve the conflict between what the Applicant says was his experience and the interpretation placed upon the material provided and considered by the Commission. That is not, however, the end of the matter. [99] It is an unsatisfactory outcome in circumstances which have a bearing on a person’s capacity to derive income in the building industry that the decision must be made based on the adequacy of evidence provided to the Commission and the Tribunal in circumstances where further or additional evidence has in fact been put forward once its specific requirements were known. [100] In my view, the appropriate outcome is to allow the application, set aside the decision and return the matter for reconsideration to the Commission and direct that the Respondent conduct a further review of the application, the evidence and the conclusions it has reached. [101] I direct that the Respondent give further and detailed consideration to the material set out in the Applicant’s reply material, as summarised in these reasons under the heading “the Applicant’s case” and any further material that he chooses to provide, and further that the Applicant provide any further material he seeks to rely on to the Commission within 60 days of the date of this order. [102] It would, of course, be open to the Applicant to gain further experience, particularly since he now has what must be a near complete, detailed understanding of what the experience requirements are and what the evidential expectations of the Respondent are. [103] In the event that the Commission considers that adequate material has been provided, it should proceed to determine whether the financial requirements have been met. [104] The application to set aside the decision be allowed and return the matter for reconsideration to the Respondent and direct that the Respondent conduct a further review of the application, the evidence and the conclusions it has reached. [105] I direct that the Respondent give further and detailed consideration to the material set out in the Applicant’s reply material, as summarised in the reasons under the heading “the Applicant’s case”, and any further material that he chooses to provide and -- 22 of 23 -- 23 further that the Applicant provide any further material he seeks to rely on to the Respondent within 60 days of the date of this order. [106] I grant the parties liberty to apply in respect of any other consequential or other orders which might be required to be made. -- 23 of 23 --