A recent Supreme Court of Queensland decision as to what constitutes a ‘’construction company’’ under the QBCC Act brings consequences for construction groups who undertake works under different State entities.
Partner, Ted Williams, and Senior Associate, Gemma Twemlow, review the decision and what it means for construction companies.
The Supreme Court of Queensland recently considered whether a company that carried out building work in New South Wales constituted a ‘’construction company’’ for the purposes of section 56AC of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (Act).
Background
Midson Construction (NSW) Pty Ltd (Midson NSW) undertook construction work in New South Wales only. As a result of that company being placed in liquidation, the QBCC proposed to cancel the director of that company’s QBCC licence along with the licence of the Queensland arm, Midson Construction (Qld) Pty Ltd (Midson Qld), pursuant to sections 56AF and 56AG of the Act.
Midson Qld and the director sought injunctive relief and judicial review of the QBCC’s proposal. The QBCC cross-applied seeking dismissal of Midson Qld’s and the director’s application. Given issues raised the constitutional validity of the Act, the State of Queensland also intervened.
