Dreyer v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2026] QCAT 343

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Dreyer v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2026] QCAT 343 PARTIES: DEAN JASON DREYER (applicant) v QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: OCR239-23 MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters DELIVERED ON: 31 July 2026 HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member King-Scott ORDERS: Application dismissed The decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission dated 18 August 2023 is confirmed. CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – where the Queensland Building and Construction Commission refused the applicant’s application for a contractor’s licence in the ‘Builder – Medium Rise’ class – where the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the internal review decision – whether the correct and preferable decision is to confirm the decision PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – BUILDERS – LICENCES AND REGISTRATION – QUALIFICATIONS – where the applicant was required to demonstrate four years’ experience in the scope of work for the ‘Builder – Medium Rise’ class – where the projects relied upon fell outside the relevant scope of works, were insufficiently detailed or were undertaken as an owner-builder – where the referee reports did not verify the applicant’s claimed experience – whether the applicant has the qualifications and experience required by regulation -- 1 of 9 -- 2 PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – BUILDERS – LICENCES AND REGISTRATION – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant engaged in threatening and abusive conduct towards Commission staff and others on occasions spanning several years – where the applicant acknowledged the conduct but provided no evidence of remediation – whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a contractor’s licence Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 3, s 31(1), s 31(3) s 33, s 86(1), s 87 Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld), sch 2, pt 5 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 24(1), s 32 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 634 Dreyer v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2022] QCAT 276 Fewster and Anor v Queensland Building and Construction Commission and Anor [2021] QCAT 251 Phillips v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCAT 159 APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) Applicant: Self-represented Respondent: Holding Redlich Lawyers REASONS FOR DECISION [1] Mr Dean Jason Dreyer (Applicant) applies to the Tribunal pursuant to section 86(1)(a) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (QBCC Act) for review of a decision made by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (Commission) dated 18 August 2023 (Internal Review Decision). By that decision, the Commission declined to issue the Applicant with a contractor’s licence in the ‘Builder – Medium Rise’ class. Background [2] On or about 2 May 2023, the Applicant applied for a contractor’s licence in the ‘Builder – Medium Rise’ class (Licence Application). [3] I note that the applicant, previously had been refused a Builder – Medium Rise licence. An external review of that decision confirmed the Commission’s decision on 19 July 2022.1 1 Dreyer v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2022] QCAT 276. -- 2 of 9 -- 3 [4] On 31 May 2023, the Commission sent the Applicant a request for further information in respect of the Licence Application. In response, the Applicant provided further information in a document titled ‘Document 1B’ on 8 June 2023. [5] On 29 June 2023, the Commission wrote to the Applicant informing him that it had refused the Licence Application on the basis that the Applicant had not provided sufficient evidence that: (a) He had four years’ experience performing in the same scope as the Builder – Medium Rise class; and (b) He had experience in personally supervising building work from the preliminary stage for a ‘Builder – Medium Rise’ class [6] On 29 June 2023, the Applicant filed an application to have the Original Decision internally reviewed. [7] On 8 August 2023, the Commission sent the Applicant a further request for information concerning the eligibility criteria under section 31(1)(a) of the QBCC Act, namely whether the Applicant was a fit and proper person to hold the licence. The Commission invited the Applicant to make submissions regarding complaints about aggressive and abusive conduct toward Commission staff, external agencies and consumers, and regarding the Applicant’s answer on the licence application that he had not been disciplined by any Tribunal, Board, Commission or Authority. [8] On 15 August 2023, the Applicant responded to the Commission’s request for further information. [9] On 21 August 2023, the Commission issued the Internal Review Decision (dated 18 August 2023) declining to issue the Applicant with a ‘Builder – Medium Rise’ licence on the following grounds: (a) the Applicant did not meet the requisite experience requirements; and (b) the Applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold the licence. [10] On or about 21 September 2023, the Applicant filed the present application for review of the Internal Review Decision. Jurisdiction [11] Section 86(1)(a) of the QBCC Act provides that a decision to refuse an application for a licence is a ‘reviewable decision’. Section 87 of the QBCC Act provides that a person affected by a reviewable decision may apply to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. The Tribunal accordingly has jurisdiction to hear and determine the present application. [12] In a proceeding for review of a reviewable decision, the Tribunal may, pursuant to section 24(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act): (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 decision- maker, with directions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. -- 3 of 9 -- 4 [13] The task of the Tribunal is to determine what is the ‘correct or preferable decision’ on the material before it.2 Legislation [14] Section 31(1) of the QBCC Act provides that a person (not being a company) is entitled to a contractor's licence if the Commission is satisfied of a number of criteria, including that: (a) the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold the licence; and (b) the applicant has the qualifications and experience required by regulation in relation to a licence of the relevant class. [15] In deciding whether a particular person is a fit and proper person to hold a contractor’s licence, section 31(3) of the QBCC Act provides that the Commission may have regard to, among other things: (a) commercial and other dealings in which that person has been involved and the standard of honesty and integrity demonstrated in those dealings; and (b) any other relevant factor. [16] The standard of qualifications and experience required is set out in Schedule 2, Part 5 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld) (QBCC Regulation). As the Applicant does not hold a qualification in either carpentry or bricklaying, the Applicant is required to demonstrate four years (48 months) experience in the scope of work for the ‘Builder – Medium Rise’ class, or other work that the Commission is satisfied is at least equivalent. [17] The Commission is empowered by section 33 of the QBCC Act to request further information or evidence from an applicant, and to make such inquiries and investigations as are reasonable in the circumstances, including by seeking confirmation of experience through site inspections and referee checks. [18] The onus lies on the Applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that the criteria for the grant of a licence are met. As Member Hughes observed in Fewster and Anor v Queensland Building and Construction Commission and Anor,3 in the absence of appropriate evidence the Tribunal will not be free to make the decision sought by the party. [19] The applicant’s submissions comprise of numerous pages of irrelevant and times nonsensical submissions which fail to address with evidence the issues that require determination. Qualifications and Experience — Section 31(1)(b) [20] The Commission assessed the Applicant’s claimed experience by reference to ten projects and four referees submitted as part of the Licence Application. Having considered the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has demonstrated four years verifiable experience in the scope of work for the ‘Builder – Medium Rise’ licence class, for the reasons set out below. 2 Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 639. 3 [2021] QCAT 251 at [5]. -- 4 of 9 -- 5 The projects [21] The Applicant relied on experience derived from the following ten projects: 18 Elkhorn Street; 68 Image Flat Road; 15 Gary Street; 12 Orvieto Terrace; 107 Ferry Street; 5 Escape Court; Lot 57 Fred Chaplin Court; 14 Sippy Creek Road; Cleveland Redland Bay Road; and 1062 Ann Street. [22] Having reviewed the documentary evidence submitted in respect of those projects, I accept the Commission’s submissions that, broadly, the projects and documentary evidence did not satisfy the requirements for the ‘Builder – Medium Rise’ class for the following reasons: (a) A number of the relevant projects did not fall within the ‘Builder – Medium Rise’ scope of works, or the applicable licence class was unclear due to insufficient information provided. (b) In several instances, no policy of insurance was provided for the relevant works. (c) No adequate detail was provided as to the Applicant’s roles and responsibilities on site, or how the Applicant was engaged in respect of each project. (d) A number of the projects appear to be those of the Applicant’s own development company, Zola Developments — the holder of the business name ‘Zola Developments’ being Dreyer Group Pty Ltd, of which the Applicant is the Director and Secretary. The Commission does not recognise experience gained through the carrying out of work as an owner-builder. The Applicant has not adequately distinguished between his claimed supervisory experience and work performed in his capacity as an owner-builder or developer. (e) The information provided was vague and unclear regarding what works were being built, what works were being supervised, and how those works related to the ‘Builder – Medium Rise’ scope of works. The Applicant has not demonstrated that he supervised all typical stages of building construction for the ‘Builder – Medium Rise’ class. (f) No independent evidence was provided — by way of contract, employment agreement, payslip or similar — to verify that the Applicant was engaged as a site supervisor or in an equivalent role. In some instances, the Applicant appeared to have verified his own experience. [23] I accept the observations of Member Holzberger in Phillips v Queensland Building and Construction Commission,4 that the maintenance of proper standards requires an applicant to demonstrate that, over the requisite period, they have carried out under the supervision of a licensed person the types of tasks and responsibilities that they will be permitted to undertake without such supervision should the licence be granted. The evidence before me does not meet that standard. The referees [24] The Applicant relied on four referees: Graham Bebington (dated 29 March 2023); Grahame Bell (dated 3 February 2023); Daniel Casamento (dated 22 October 2015); and Rod Soppe (dated 19 October 2015). 4 [2021] QCAT 159 at [15]. -- 5 of 9 -- 6 [25] I accept the Commission’s submission that none of the four referee reports constitute acceptable references, for the following reasons: (a) Information and other relevant details were not provided as part of the references, including information in respect of the sites, time periods, works performed by the Applicant, competencies performed by the Applicant, and the roles and responsibilities of the Applicant. (b) In respect of Mr Rod Soppe: when previously contacted by the Commission on 26 June 2020, Mr Soppe advised that he thought the Applicant was a concreter he used many years ago, and that he would be uncomfortable acting as a referee. Mr Soppe provided no adequate basis for verifying the Applicant’s claimed experience in the scope of the ‘Builder – Medium Rise’ class. (c) In respect of Mr Graham Bebington: the reference appeared to be a personal reference supporting the Licence Application, rather than a substantive referee report verifying the Applicant's competency in the scope of works. (d) In respect of Mr Daniel Casamento: when the Commission contacted Mr Casamento on 30 June 2020 to complete a referee check form, Mr Casamento responded that he was not sure what the email was about, queried who Dean Dreyer was and where he was from. This response fundamentally undermined the weight of the reference provided. [26] The Commission provided the Applicant with an opportunity to address deficiencies in the referee reports by requesting further information prior to the making of the Original Decision. The Applicant did not take that opportunity to obtain alternative references or to verify the contents of the written references. As Member Cranwell observed in Dreyer v Queensland Building and Construction Commission,5 the Applicant could have addressed these issues by obtaining written statements from referees explaining their responses to the QBCC, or by obtaining alternative references from other suitably qualified persons. The Applicant took neither of these steps. [27] In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has demonstrated, with documentary evidence satisfactory to the standard required, four years of adequate verifiable experience covering all aspects of the ‘Builder – Medium Rise’ scope of work or an equivalent. Fit and proper person – Section 31(1)(a) [28] Separately and independently, I am not satisfied that the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a contractor's licence in the ‘Builder – Medium Rise’ class. [29] In Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond,6 the High Court observed that in assessing whether a person is ‘fit and proper’, the question may be whether improper conduct has occurred, whether it is likely to occur, whether it can be assumed that it will not occur, or whether the general community will have confidence that it will not occur. [30] In deciding whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold the licence, I have had regard to the factors in section 31(3) of the QBCC Act, including the commercial 5 [2022] QCAT 276 at [17]–[19]. 6 (1990) 170 CLR 321 at 380. -- 6 of 9 -- 7 and other dealings in which the Applicant has been involved and the standard of honesty and integrity demonstrated in those dealings, and any other relevant factor. [31] The evidence before the Tribunal establishes the following pattern of conduct: (a) On 12 December 2016, the Commission’s Assistant Commissioner wrote to the Applicant regarding telephone conversations in which the Applicant had used offensive language and issued threats in relation to the personal safety and property of another person. The Applicant was advised that it is important for a QBCC licensee to always conduct themselves in a professional and courteous manner and that the letter would be placed on his file for future reference. (b) On 3 September 2020, approximately four years later, the Commission issued a Formal Warning letter to the Applicant. That letter referred to the Applicant making threats against QBCC staff — which threats were referred to the Queensland Police Service — advised the Applicant that the language used in communications with the QBCC is not acceptable and will not be tolerated, and requested the Applicant to immediately desist from any further threats, use of profanities, personal attacks, or other belligerent language against QBCC staff. [32] The Applicant accepted, as part of the internal review process, that there had been unprofessional comments, actions and behaviours, and acknowledged that he had behavioural issues with anger and abuse. However, the Applicant did not detail what steps, if any, he had taken to rectify his behaviour. [33] During this time, the applicant has held since 2015 a Medium Rise Site Supervisor License a requirement of which is, that he be a fit in proper person. That he is a fit and proper person to hold a Supervisor’s licence is incongruous with the assertion that he is not a fit and proper parson to hold a Builder’s licence. I note that the events that form the basis of the Commission’s decision occurred whilst the applicant held a Supervisor’s Licence. I can only surmise that the conduct complained of did not warrant the Commission taking steps to cancel the applicant’s Supervisor’s Licence but nevertheless justified it opposing his Builder’s application where he might not be supervised. [34] I find the following: (a) The conduct described above is objectively serious. The making of threats of personal harm to Commission officers, and threats to the personal property and safety of another person, represents a fundamental departure from the standard of conduct expected of a licensed contractor. (b) The conduct is not an isolated incident. It occurred on at least two separate occasions spanning approximately four years, demonstrating a pattern of behaviour notwithstanding the Commission’s earlier correspondence. (c) The Applicant acknowledged the conduct but has provided no evidence of remediation or the steps taken to address the underlying issues. (d) A licensed builder in the ‘Builder – Medium Rise’ class will be required to deal closely with consumers, subcontractors and other industry participants. Consumers are entitled to a reasonable expectation that they will not be subject to threats or aggressive conduct in any circumstances. -- 7 of 9 -- 8 (e) The conduct is directly relevant to the standard of honesty and integrity required by section 31(3)(a) of the QBCC Act and constitutes an ‘other relevant factor’ within section 31(3)(f) of the QBCC Act. [35] The Commission is charged by section 3 of the QBCC Act with regulating the building industry to ensure the maintenance of proper standards and to achieve a reasonable balance between the interests of building contractors and consumers. This protective function requires the Commission — and on review, this Tribunal — to ensure that licences are granted only to persons who are not only appropriately experienced and qualified, but who can also be expected to conduct themselves with honesty and integrity in their dealings with consumers and others. [36] Having regard to the pattern of conduct established by the evidence, and the Applicant’s failure to demonstrate that steps have been taken to address that conduct, I am not satisfied that the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold the licence. Applicant’s submissions [37] In his submissions, the Applicant raised a number of matters including allegations of discrimination, claims that the Commission and its legal representatives had acted improperly, and various procedural objections. Having carefully considered these submissions, I do not accept them as a basis for setting aside or amending the Internal Review Decision, for the following reasons: (a) To the extent the Applicant raises allegations of direct discrimination, those allegations do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in this proceeding. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the Internal Review Decision on its merits. The Applicant’s Review Application itself identifies the decision to be reviewed as the Internal Review Decision, and the Tribunal’s powers are accordingly confined to the options available under section 24(1) of the QCAT Act. (b) The Applicant’s allegations against the Commission and its legal representatives are serious, unsubstantiated and without evidentiary foundation. They are rejected. (c) The procedural objections raised by the Applicant — including arguments that the Commission’s submissions should be treated as null and void — are misconceived. The Commission filed its Leave Application on 10 June 2024 and was directed by Senior Member Aughterson to file submissions pursuant to the Directions of 25 March 2025. The Commission has properly participated in the proceeding in accordance with those Directions. (d) The Applicant’s submissions do not, either individually or collectively, constitute adequate evidence to discharge the onus of proving entitlement to the licence sought. Conclusion [38] For the reasons set out above, I find that: (a) the Applicant has not demonstrated, to the requisite standard, four years' verifiable experience in the scope of work for the ‘Builder – Medium Rise’ licence class, and accordingly does not satisfy section 31(1)(b) of the QBCC Act; and -- 8 of 9 -- 9 (b) the Applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold the licence and accordingly does not satisfy section 31(1)(a) of the QBCC Act. [39] Either finding is independently sufficient to require confirmation of the Internal Review Decision. The Applicant’s failure to satisfy both criteria reinforces that conclusion. [40] The Internal Review Decision of the Commission dated 18 August 2023 is confirmed. Each party is to bear their own costs of and incidental to the proceeding. -- 9 of 9 --