Ferris v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCATA 210

CITATION: Ferris v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCATA 210 PARTIES: Paul Ferris (trading as Covecorp Queensland) (Appellant) v Queensland Building Services Authority (Respondent) APPLICATION NUMBER: APL026-13 MATTER TYPE: Appeals HEARING DATE: 12 July 2013 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Peta Stilgoe OAM, Senior Member Dr J R Forbes, Member DELIVERED ON: 23 July 2013 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: The application is dismissed CATCHWORDS: APPEAL – Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 – cancellation of licence – review of decision to cancel licence – appeal from decision on review – whether licensed builder exercised reasonable diligence to ensure that the work carried out was not defective – whether work in question structural – Form 16 – whether Form 16 relevant to defence of reasonable diligence – whether Tribunal, on review, erred in ruling Form 16 immaterial – whether refusal of application to reopen applicant’s case error of law Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 ss 3, 4, 20, 28, 95, 142 Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (“the Act”) s 67AB, 67AF, 67AH, 67AO Queensland Building Services Authority Regulation 2003 Evidence Act 1977 s 129B Building Act 1975 ss 68, 122 Home Building Regulation 2004 (NSW) reg 70 -- 1 of 11 -- 2 Armstrong v Plumbing Industry Council [2013] QCAT 223; Vadasz v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCAT 84 Bradshaw v Bar Association of Queensland [2012] QCA 322 McClintock v Queensland Building Services Authority [2011] QCATA 310 Earle v Castlemaine District Community Hospital [1974] VR 722 Payne v Parker [1976] 1 NSWLR 191 Steele v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1974] 2 NSWLR 348 Liaweena (NSW) Pty Ltd v McWilliams Wines Pty Ltd [1991] ASC 56-038 Builders Licensing Board v Sperway Constructions (Sydney) Pty Ltd (1976) 135 CLR 616 Southwell v Specialised Engineering Services Pty Ltd (1990) 70 NTR 6 McMahon v Cooper [1989] 2 Qd R 418 G Wallin & Anor v Lake Macquarie City Council & Ors [1997] NSWLEC 168 Al Mousawy v Howitt-Stevens Constructions Pty Limited & Ors [2010] NSWSC 122 Turijman v Stonewall Hotel Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 392 Kalantzis v Commissioner of Fair Trading, NSW Office of Fair Trading [2008] NSWADT 23 Jones v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QCAT 563 Harding v Port Phillip CC [2002] VCAT 416 Carbure Pty Ltd v Brile Pty Ltd [2002] V ConvR 54-663; [2002] VSC 272 McDonald v Director-General of Social Security (1984) 1 FCR 354 Huang v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2011] FCA 901 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 NSW Bar Association v Evatt (1968) 117 CLR 177 Adamson v Queensland Law Society Inc [1990] 1 Qd R 498 Luu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1988) 157 ALR 213 Brettingham-Moore v Municipality of St Leonards (1969) 121 CLR 509 APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any): -- 2 of 11 -- 3 APPLICANT: Mr T Matthews, instructed by Madison Lodder, solicitors RESPONDENT: Mr P Dunning QC instructed by H W L Ebsworth, solicitors REASONS FOR DECISION Peta Stilgoe, Senior Member [1] In this matter, the Appeal Tribunal consisted of Dr John Forbes, QCAT Member and me. I have had the benefit of reading his reasons in draft. I agree with his reasons, and his conclusions, and the order he proposes. Dr Forbes, Member [2] On or about 13 June 2003 the appellant Paul Ferris (“Ferris”), a building contractor licensed by the Queensland Building Services Authority (“the BSA”), and trading as Covecorp Queensland (“Covecorp”) contracted to build residential units to be known as Watermark North (“the building”) at John Street, Redcliffe, for N F Developments Pty Ltd. [3] As the work was nearing completion, three pillars1 were erected on the rooftop of the building, and a shade sail was attached to them. The Tribunal has found, and it is not now in dispute, that Ferris, as the BSA’s licensee, is responsible for those actions. BSA Action Commenced [4] On 24 August 2007 the BSA received a complaint from the owner’s building manager alleging that: [A] large pillar containing fan exhaust pipes had roof sails attached by a buckle – the force of the wind in the sails resulted in movement of the pillar with flaking of plaster – base of pillar has major cracks.2 [5] On 6 September 2007 Peter Lack, a building inspector employed by the BSA, in company with senior building inspector Les Brain and John Speedy3 inspected and photographed the subject pillars.4 [6] During this inspection, Mr Lack drilled holes in the concrete block pillars to ascertain whether the cores of the blocks were filled with concrete (core filled).5 It was subsequently found by the BSA’s expert that there was 1 Variously described as “pillars”, “piers” and “ducts”. They enclosed mechanical exhaust pipes. The term “pillar” is used in these reasons. 2 Appeal Book (“AB”) Vol 1 pp 348, 364. 3 Representing the Body Corporate for ”Watermark North”. 4 AB Vol 1 – 350 (Brain). 5 AB Vol 1 – 350 (Brian). -- 3 of 11 -- 4 some core filling, but that it did not extend to the lower 1.6 metres of the main pillar, where proper filling was especially important.6 [7] By letter dated 11 October 2007 the BSA notified Ferris that in its opinion, his construction of the pillars, subsequently used as anchors for a shade sail, was “tier 1” defective work.7 [8] “Tier 1” defective work is defined as: ... grossly defective building work that – (a) falls below the standard reasonably expected of a licensed contractor for the type of building work; and (b) either – (i) adversely affects the structural performance of a building to the extent that a person could not reasonably be expected to use the building for the purpose for which it was, or is being, erected or constructed; or (ii) is likely to cause the death of, or grievous bodily harm to, a person.8 Licence Cancelled [9] After considering submissions by Ferris, and arranging another inspection by Peter Lack on 4 December 20079 the BSA, on 11 December 2007, cancelled Ferris’ licence for three years.10 Application for Review [10] On 18 December 2007 Ferris filed an application for review of that decision in the former Queensland Commercial and Consumer Tribunal11. [11] On 18 December 2012, after a rehearing de novo,12 the Tribunal, Dr Cullen presiding, dismissed the application, and confirmed the BSA’s decision. Review Decision Appealed [12] On 16 January 2013 Ferris filed an application for leave to appeal. If, and in so far as the appeal concerns an error of law, leave is not required.13 [13] In view of the conduct of proceedings on appeal, it is necessary to consider only the first ground, alleging a denial of natural justice: The Member denied the Appellant natural justice in so far as the Member – 6 Transcript of hearing 20.8.2012 page 122 (Wright). [GET VOL AND PAGE] 7 AB Vol 1 352 (Brain). 8 Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (“the Act”) s 67AB(1). 9 AB Vol 1 – 353 (Brain). 10 AB Vol 1 – 356 (Brain); s 67AH, 67AO(3) of the Act. 11 See QCAT Act Chapter 7 (transitional provisions). 12 QCAT Act s 20; Armstrong v Plumbing Industry Council [2013] QCAT 223 at [17]; Vadasz v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCAT 84 at [20]; Bradshaw v Bar Association of Queensland [2012] QCA 322 at [10]. 13 QCAT Act s 142(3)(b); McClintock v Queensland Building Services Authority [2011] QCATA 310 at [7]. -- 4 of 11 -- 5 (a) refused to allow the Appellant to re-examine the Respondent’s witnesses which resulted in the Appellant being unable to adduce evidence that the building was constructed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards; (b) erred in determining that the author of Form 16 was not allowed to give evidence on the basis that any such evidence was not relevant; (c) erred in determining that the Appellant did not produce the Form 16; and (d) erred in not allow [sic] the Appellant to provide evidence from the author of the Form 16. Natural Justice Ground: Primary Hearing [14] At the primary hearing the emphasis, so far as natural justice is concerned, was on two points: first, that the notice was defective, in alleging “no core filling” when in fact there was some, albeit insufficient;14 and, second, that the Appellant was not allowed to “re-examine” (or, rather, cross-examine) two officers of the BSA who were said to have inspected the offending pillars.15 The Member reasonably decided16, that there was little if anything that they could add to the criticisms of Lack, Brain, Wright and Ferris’ expert, Caswell17, concerning the insufficient reinforcement of those items, as anchors for a shade sail potentially subject to high winds. [15] In the interests of expedition and economy18 the Tribunal is entitled to curb evidence that is insufficiently relevant, or is already in ample supply.19 A party is not required to call a plethora of witnesses on the same point to avoid an adverse inference.20 Natural Justice Ground on Appeal [16] However, neither of those arguments was pursued by Ferris’ counsel on appeal. (This is not criticism, but a matter of fact.) The thrust of the appeal was that the Member erroneously excluded or ignored a “Form 16”,21 thereby depriving Ferris of a defence22 that he “exercised reasonable diligence to ensure that the work carried out was not defective”, by relying upon the certificate of his structural engineer, Mr Biggs. [17] There was some confusion about the existence of that document, and the difference between a Form 16 and a Form 15,23 but a copy of Form 16, signed by the structural engineer, appears and is referred to several times 14 AB Vol 3 - 110 (Alford). 15 AB Vol 3 – 922 to 932. 16 Finding of Member, Vol 7 – 2320, 2322. 17 AB Vol 3 – 723. 18 QCAT Act ss 3(c), 4(c). 19 QCAT Act s 95(2). 20 Steele v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1974] 2 NSWLR 348 at 377; Liaweena (NSW) Pty Ltd v McWilliams Wines Pty Ltd [1991] ASC 56-038 at 56,617 per Kirby P. 21 QBSA Form 16 – Compliance Certificate – Construction. 22 Based on subsection 67AF(2)(c)(iii) of the Act. 23 QBSA Form 15 – Compliance Certificate for Building Design or Specification. -- 5 of 11 -- 6 in the Appeal Book.24 It was not ignored in the Member’s decision. She did not simply find – as was suggested – that there was no Form 16. Rather, she held that “Mr Ferris did not produce a Form 16 indicating that the engineering in relation to the masonry [pillars] were [sic] satisfactory”.25 Engineer Biggs’ Certificate: Relevance Issue [18] It is true that this point was made in the course of an oral, albeit reserved, decision, without the same clarity and felicity that might be expected in a reserved, written decision. But careful examination of the record indicates that the distinction been a Form 16 covering structural work, and a Form 16 certifying the non-structural pillars in particular, was canvassed in submissions of the BSA’s counsel before the Member: The [BSA] submits that the particular certificate which the Applicant seeks to tender could not affect the result. The particular Form 16 which the applicant seeks to tender is signed by a Mr Ronald Biggs and refers to “all structural components of building”. Importantly, the Form 16 does not refer to the masonry columns which are the subject of these proceedings. In circumstances where the Applicant has not proposed to call the author of the document (Mr Biggs) ... it would be inappropriate to allow the Applicant to reopen his case simply so that his witnesses can speculate about whether the document amounts to evidence that Biggs inspected and signed off on the construction of the masonry columns. Further, any [such] suggestion is directly contrary to the Applicant’s own material. Exhibit PF-3 to the affidavit of Mr Ferris sworn 13 January 2012 is a letter from Mr Biggs26 which says as follows: “I did not consider those structures required reinforcing or core filling and so I excluded them from my structural drawings”. ... If the Applicant cannot produce evidence to connect the Form 16 to the relevant columns (which he cannot) ... the Form 16 is ... irrelevant and the Tribunal ought not to ... admit it into evidence.27 [19] Copies of Form 16 in the Appeal Book28 state: “WORK INSPECTED: All structural components of building”. [20] John Francis McLean, Ferris’ project manager, accepted in cross- examination that the pillars “had nothing to do with the structural integrity of the building”.29 Phillip Lovett, Ferris’ contracts manager, did not recall any letter from the engineer stating that the pillars were approved.30 What Did Biggs Certify? [21] It is desirable to quote Mr Biggs’ letter of 10 January 201231 in full: 24 AB Vol 7 – 2514, 2541, 2551, Vol 4 – 1159, 1215. 25 AB Vol 7 – 2322, emphasis added. And earlier on the same page: “... if a Form 16 existed ... in relation to causing the work [i.e. construction of the pillars] to be carried out in an effective way”. 26 Ronald T Biggs MIE Aust to “Whom it may concern” 10 January 2012. 27 AB Vol 7 – 2563-2564. 28 AB Vol 1 – 327; Vol 7 – 2551. 29 AB Vol 1 – 801, line 18. 30 Transcript 24 February 2012 page165. 31 Exhibit PF-3 to affidavit of Paul Ferris sworn 13 January 2012. -- 6 of 11 -- 7 Watermark North 76-78 John Street Redcliffe – to whom it may concern. Saromar Consultants Pty Ltd was the structural engineer responsible for designing the structure for the above project. I was the senior engineer who oversaw that work. During 2004 my associates and I conducted regular inspections of the structural elements of the building, including foundations, slabs and masonry walls. Once the structure was completed to my satisfaction, I provided a certificate evidencing that the work had met the requirements of my design and the relevant AS codes. I do recall the three masonry elements on the rooftop of the building. They enclosed mechanical exhaust pipes. I did not consider those structures required reinforcing or core filling so I excluded them from my structural drawings.32 I confirmed this with the site manager at the time in answer to a query from him. I trust this clarifies the history of this matter. [22] It does not appear that Mr Biggs was aware that what he called “masonry elements” would serve any purpose other than to conceal unsightly exhaust pipes. [23] Ferris’ expert witness, Troy Caswell, would also have limited the pillars to protection and cosmetic concealment of the exhaust pipes: Although the fact that a shade sail was attached may have been overlooked in the documentation at the time of construction of these ducts, the masonry enclosing the air-conditioning ductwork was built to protect it from the elements and to hide the ventilation pipes from view. For this sole purpose, unreinforced block masonry was adequate.33 [24] The Member recognised the cosmetic purpose in colourful comment that drew no dissent from Ferris’ counsel, or from Ferris, who was in the witness box at the time: Here’s my read of this. Basically ... Mr Biggs, who is not here, is saying ... that these structures around this are what I would call ... makeup for blokes, OK? That it’s nothing that’s meant to be, you know, an integral part that necessitated engineering. It’s basically something around it to look pretty.34 [25] Ferris, for his part, does not deny responsibility for attachment of the sail.35 He admitted that he could not recall building a “non-core filled structure” and attaching a sail to it before, and he could not refer to any engineering advice condoning such a practice.36 Nor could his expert, Mr Caswell: Question: [A]n un-core filled column which has a shade sail attached to it in these circumstances would have been inappropriate ... ? 32 The engineering plans did not deal with construction of the pillars: Transcript 28 February 2012 page 210 (Ferris). 33 Report of Troy Caswell to Phil Lovett, Covecorp Australia Pty Ltd, 29 January 2008, page 2, emphasis added. 34 Transcript 24 February 2012 page 196. 35 Transcript 24 February 2012 pages 204, 205, 223 (Ferris). See also page 99 line 37, page 137 (McLean). 36 Transcript 24 February 2012 pages 211, 212 (Ferris). -- 7 of 11 -- 8 Caswell: That’s right ... I wouldn’t have done that.37 [26] Mr Wright, the BSA’s expert, was most explicit: “If you attach a shade sail to it, it‟s going to – as sure as the sun rises, ... fall down”.38 Biggs is not Called [27] At first instance Ferris’ case was presented first. That is not the usual practice at a rehearing de novo39, but procedure was at the discretion of the Tribunal40, and counsel did not object.41 Early in the piece the Member expressed surprise that Biggs was not a witness for the applicant. Ferris’ counsel replied: [W]e are quite happy to explain that. Mr Biggs, I think, is about 78. Mr Biggs was actually here this morning ... at 9.30. And Mr Biggs had had a conference with his wife and had decided that he was not going to testify; he was too old for this sort of stress.42 [28] The Member’s question seems to have assumed that Biggs’ testimony could assist the applicant’s case. If Ferris’ counsel had taken that view, he should forthwith have called Biggs (with his documents, including the Form 16), under subpoena if need be – if, indeed a summons was needed to compel the appearance of a witness in the precincts of the court.43 After all, exculpation was an issue from the outset.44 [29] But counsel’s acquiescence in Biggs’ decision to excuse himself from the witness box is understandable45. Material already in the applicant’s hands46 indicated that, absent a radical departure from his letter of 10 January 2012, Biggs would say that his certificate did not cover the pillars, and a fortiori did not certify them as suitable anchors for a shade sail. If curial procedure was followed, counsel for Ferris could not cross- examine his own witness. [30] Biggs’ letter clearly states that he did not regard the pillars as structural items, and that he did not certify them as such. The term “structural”, as used in engineering parlance and practice, is not defined in the Act or its pendant Regulations.47 However, in professional literature and decisions in building cases there is a consistent emphasis on “load bearing” 37 Transcript 24 February 2012 page 59 (Caswell). See also page 32 (Caswell). 38 Transcript 20 August 2012 page 124. 39 Builders Licensing Board v Sperway Constructions (Sydney) Pty Ltd (1976) 135 CLR 616 at 620; Southwell v Specialised Engineering Services Pty Ltd (1990) 70 NTR 6 at 7. 40 QCAT Act s 28(1). 41 Transcript 24 February 2012 page 8. 42 Transcript 24 February 2012 page 196. 43 McMahon v Cooper [1989] 2 Qd R 418; Evidence Act 1977 s 129B. 44 AB Vol 4 page 1153. 45 Despite counsel’s concession: “It seemed pertinent to me to call him”: Transcript 24 February 2012 page 197(Alford). 46 Namely, Biggs’ letter of 10 January 2012; Exhibit PF-3 to affidavit of Paul Ferris sworn 13 January 2012. 47 Queensland Building Services Authority Regulation 2003. -- 8 of 11 -- 9 components and “stresses”. A prospectus of the School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, University of Adelaide states: Structural engineers design the framework of buildings ... and other structures to ensure strength and rigidity. Factors which must be considered include tolerable stresses within given safety margins, vibration allowances, size, shape, appearance and economy. “Structural” in Engineering Parlance [31] The Institution of Structural Engineers of the United Kingdom offers this metaphor: In a nutshell, if a structure was a human body, then the architect would be concerned with the body shape and appearance, and the structural engineer would be concerned with the skeleton and sinews. [32] The website of Engineers Australia, Canberra, explains that “structural engineers carry out strength calculations and prepare drawings of structures to ensure that they are strong enough to avoid collapse when loaded. ... They ensure that buildings are strong enough to withstand natural forces and loads imposed by the nature of its use.” Thus, wall footings48 and suspended floors49 and “likely loadings” generally50 are the business of a structural engineer. Defects “of an aesthetic nature” are not.51 A concrete slab is a structure, but decorative tiles adhering to it are not.52 “Structurally unsound” means that [a] building, or parts of it such as the foundations or walls or roof, are not free from injury ... We are of the opinion that the expression “structurally unsound” ... in ordinary usage would include that [a] building ... [is] likely to collapse ...53 [33] Queensland legislation akin to the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 provides that alterations to buildings must not be approved unless a certifier considers that the structure will be “structurally sound and capable of withstanding the loadings likely to arise from its use”.54 Similar legislation in New South Wales defines “structural element of a building” as “any internal or external load-bearing component of a building ... such as foundations, floors, walls, roofs, columns and beams.”55 In Carbure Pty Ltd v Brile Pty Ltd56, after referring to a Glossary of Building Terms published by Standards Australia, Balmford J concluded: “In the light of the above definitions, „the 48 G Wallin & Anor v Lake Macquarie City Council & Ors [1997] NSWLEC 168. 49 Al Mousawy v Howitt-Stevens Constructions Pty Limited & Ors [2010] NSWSC 122. 50 Turijman v Stonewall Hotel Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 392 at [10]. 51 Kalantzis v Commissioner of Fair Trading, NSW Office of Fair Trading [2008] NSWADT 23 at [7]. 52 Jones v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QCAT 563 at [32]. 53 Harding v Port Phillip CC [2002] VCAT 416 at [37]. 54 Building Act 1975 ss 68(3), 122(3). 55 Home Building Regulation 2004 (NSW) reg 70(2). 56 [2002] V ConvR 54-663; [2002] VSC 272 at [44]. -- 9 of 11 -- 10 structure‟ is that part of the total building that supports the loads and stops the building falling down”. Pillars Not to be Load Bearing [34] In this case the Member found no evidence that the pillars were designed to bear the load or stresses of the shade sail.57 That finding is consistent with the evidence of Caswell, Wright, the Biggs letter58, and the evidence of Ferris himself, that he could not recall building a “non- core filled structure” to which a shade sail was attached.59 It may be said that the Biggs letter is unsworn, and that its contents were not subjected to cross-examination, but it does not stand alone; the evidence of Caswell and Wright and Ferris’ admission already referred to60, are consistent with Biggs’ statement. The Member was entitled to treat it as evidence.61 Applicant’s Attempts to Reopen [35] The first proposal to reopen Ferris’ case is in a letter from his Managing Director, Helmold, to the BSA’s solicitors on 13 March 2012,62 seeking to tender the Form 16. In fact a copy of that document was filed on 5 June 201263, more than two months before the resumption of the hearing on 20 August 2012. On 21 May 2012 another letter from Helmold to the BSA’s lawyers sought a reopening of the applicant’s case to adduce evidence from McLean, Ferris and possibly Helmold to “authenticate” the Form 16.64 The BSA’s advisers replied that neither McLean nor Ferris was the author of the Form 16, and as it appeared that Biggs would not be called, McLean and Ferris should not be allowed to “speculate” about the interpretation of that document, which “does not specifically refer to masonry columns”.65 Those points are reiterated in the BSA’s submissions in opposition to a reopening, with the additional observation that Biggs’ letter “could not affect the result”.66 Under pressure to answer that contention, and despite their earlier decision not to call Mr Biggs, Ferris’ advisers, on 5 June 2012, decided to risk his appearance on summons.67 [36] In the event, a reopening was refused on 29 June 2012,68 on the ground that, as the Form 16 was not a certification of the pillars per se, let alone as anchors for the sail, it was irrelevant to the exculpation issue. 57 AB Vol 7 page 2322. 58 Exhibit PF-3 to affidavit of Paul Ferris sworn 13 January 2012. 59 Transcript 24 February 2012 pages 211, 212. 60 In paragraph [24], above. 61 QCAT Act s 28(3)(b). 62 AB Vol 7 page 2512. 63 As exhibit to affidavit of Derek Ballard, sworn 4 June 2012. 64 AB Vol 7 page 2538. 65 AB Vol 7 page 2541. 66 AB Vol 7 pages 2563-2564. 67 AB Vol 7 page 2575. 68 AB Vol 7 page 2576. -- 10 of 11 -- 11 Conclusion [37] The only live issue on appeal is whether the Form 16 is relevant to show that Ferris, in relying upon the certificate of the structural engineer, exercised reasonable diligence to ensure that the work carried out on the pillars was not defective.69 Counsel’s opening submission was to this effect: My client had the benefit of certification to rely on section 67AF exculpatory provisions, but he was refused a reopening to raise that defence. It was not suggested that Biggs, if called, would probably, or even possibly, have resiled from his statement of 10 January 2012. [38] It is unnecessary to decide whether Ferris has legal or practical onus to establish his defence.70 Be that as it may, the evidence gives rise to reasonable satisfaction, having due regard to the consequences for Mr Ferris71, that the Form 16 was irrelevant to the exculpation issue, in that it did not treat the pillars as structural, did not certify that they were structurally sound, and did not approve them as anchors or supports for the shade sail that was subsequently attached to them. It was not capable of sustaining the defence. [39] It follows that the Member did not deny Ferris natural justice by disregarding the Form 16. It is not a denial of natural justice to decline to hear evidence or argument that is irrelevant.72 Indeed, there is a duty to disregard it.73 The right to be heard applies only to material that is relevant. [40] The submissions on appeal do not reveal any error of law or other appellable error in the proceedings at first instance. The appeal should be dismissed. ORDER: The application is dismissed. 69 The Act s 67AF(2)(c)(iii). 70 McDonald v Director-General of Social Security (1984) 1 FCR 354 at 368-369; Huang v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2011] FCA 901. 71 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; NSW Bar Association v Evatt (1968) 117 CLR 177 at 183-184; Adamson v Queensland Law Society Inc [1990] 1 Qd R 498. 72 Luu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1988) 157 ALR 213. 73 Brettingham- Moore v Municipality of St Leonards (1969) 121 CLR 509 at 524. -- 11 of 11 --