Who is an Influential Person for a Construction Company?
An ‘influential person’ in a construction company is someone with significant sway or control over the company’s decisions and operations.
An influential person does not hold the position of director or secretary within a business but will be considered to have significant influence over the company.
An influential person is someone who can significantly influence the trajectory and decisions of the construction company and potentially harm its activities and conduct.
This individual may hold a formal role in the business, such as CEO or general manager, which can contribute to their influence.
They must also have direct or indirect control or personal ownership over a minimum of 50% of the company’s shares. The individual must also be deemed able to provide instructions to employees of the company that will generally be followed.
Furthermore, influencing the decision-making process in a business is a key element in determining an individual’s influence. This will include consistent participation and contribution to internal decisions significantly impacting the business’s standing.
A good way to assess whether a person is influential in a construction company is to consider whether the average person would consider them to have control or a significant say in the business’s affairs.
Thus, in shorter terms, an influential person is an individual in a construction company who has authority without the official position of director or secretary.
What does the Law Say?
The Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 discusses the meaning of an influential person under section 4AA, which states:
An “influential person”, for a company, is an individual, other than a director or secretary of the company, who is in a position to control or substantially influence the company’s conduct.
However, an influential persondoes not include—
(a) a professional, only because the advice given by the professional influences the company’s conduct; or
(b) a regulator, only because the regulator, when exercising a power or performing a function under an Act or other law, influences the company’s business; or
(c) an administrator, controller, provisional liquidator or liquidator within the meaning of the Corporations Act, section 9.Without limiting subsection (1), a person may be an influential personfor a company if the person—
(a) is the chief executive officer or general manager of the company, or holds an equivalent position in the company; or
(b) is acting in a position mentioned in paragraph (a); or
(c) directly or indirectly owns, holds or controls 50% or more of the shares in the company, or 50% or more of a class of shares in the company; or
(d) gives instructions to an officer of the company and the officer generally acts on those instructions; or
(e) makes, or participates in making, decisions that affect the whole or a substantial part of the company’s business or financial standing; or
(f) engages in conduct or makes representations that would cause someone else to reasonably believe the person controls, or substantially influences, the company’s business.
Who Qualifies as an Influential Person for a Construction Company?
The definition of an influential person under the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (QBCC Act) has evolved over time to close loopholes and prevent individuals from exerting hidden control over construction companies.
The law now captures directors, secretaries, and those who, despite lacking a formal executive title, exercise substantial control or influence over a company’s operations.
Key Characteristics of an Influential Person
An individual may be classified as an influential person if they:
- Give instructions to company officers that are generally followed – If an individual regularly directs company decisions, even informally, and employees act upon those instructions, they may be deemed influential.
- Make or participate in significant business decisions – Those who engage in or influence decisions that affect the company’s financial standing or business direction may qualify.
- Cause others to reasonably believe they control or influence the company – If an individual’s conduct leads employees, clients, or suppliers to assume they are in charge, they may be considered an influential person under the QBCC Act.
- Own or control 50% or more of the company’s shares – This financial stake can indicate influence, especially if the individual uses their shareholding to sway company decisions.
- Act as CEO, general manager, or equivalent role – Senior executives, even without being directors, often have decision-making power over significant aspects of the company’s operations.
Example 1: The Shadow Director
Scenario: John previously served as a director of a construction company but resigned after the business faced financial trouble. However, after stepping down, he continued attending executive meetings, signing contracts, and making high-level financial decisions. Employees still referred to him as “the boss.”
Outcome: Despite no longer holding a formal position, John could still be classified as an influential person because he continued to control the company’s business decisions. If the company later became insolvent, he could face regulatory consequences under the QBCC Act.
Example 2: The Silent Shareholder
Scenario: Sarah owns 60% of a construction company’s shares but does not hold an official executive role. However, she reviews all major financial decisions, approves significant purchases, and influences hiring and firing decisions.
Outcome: Even though Sarah does not have a formal management title, her majority shareholding and active participation in key business decisions mean she could be classified as an influential person under the QBCC Act.
Example 3: The Powerful Project Manager
Scenario: David is a senior project manager at a large construction firm. He regularly negotiates contracts, sets financial budgets, and makes purchasing decisions on behalf of the company. The company owner relies heavily on his recommendations and advice on key business matters.
Outcome: While David is technically an employee, his authority over financial and operational matters could lead to his classification as an influential person. This could have serious consequences if the company becomes insolvent or violates QBCC regulations.
Example 4: The Spouse as a Front
Scenario: Michael was previously banned from holding a QBCC license due to insolvency issues. To circumvent this, he registers a new construction company under his wife’s name while secretly managing the company’s daily operations, finances, and hiring decisions.
Outcome: The QBCC can investigate such cases and declare Michael an influential person, even if he does not hold a formal title. This could lead to exclusion from the industry for both Michael and his wife.
The Importance of Actual Decision-Making Power
The QBCC Act clearly states that simply holding shares or having a senior title does not automatically make someone influential.
While factors such as owning 50% or more of a company’s shares or being a general manager can contribute to an individual’s potential influence, they are not sufficient alone. What truly matters is whether the person exercises actual control or substantial influence over the company’s affairs.
This distinction is important because some individuals may appear to be in positions of power on paper but have little to no real control over business decisions. In contrast, others with no formal role may effectively run the company behind the scenes.
Actual Control vs. Hypothetical Influence
For an individual to be deemed an influential person, there must be clear evidence that they actively control or influence the company’s conduct. Courts and tribunals assessing these cases will typically ask:
- Does the person make or participate in key decisions affecting the company’s financial standing or operations?
- Do company employees or officers follow the person’s instructions on significant business matters?
- Is there evidence that the person has day-to-day control over how the company is run?
- Has the individual signed contracts, made financial decisions or represented the company in dealings with third parties?
- Would an outsider reasonably believe that this person is in control of the company based on their conduct?
If the answer to these questions is “no,” then even a major shareholder or senior employee may not be considered an influential person under the QBCC Act.
Real-Life Examples of When a Person is NOT an Influential Person
Example 1: The Passive Shareholder
Scenario: Emma owns 70% of a construction company’s shares but is not involved in its operations. The company is run entirely by a CEO and a management team, and Emma does not participate in any business decisions or provide instructions to employees.
Outcome: Despite being the majority shareholder, Emma would likely not be considered an influential person because she does not exert control or influence over the company’s conduct. The mere fact that she owns shares does not automatically make her influential.
Example 2: The Senior Manager Without Control
Scenario: James is the General Manager of a construction company. His responsibilities include overseeing projects and managing staff. However, he does not handle financial decisions, sign contracts, or control business strategy—those responsibilities lie solely with the company’s directors.
Outcome: James would likely not be deemed an influential person under the QBCC Act despite his senior job title. His role is operational rather than strategic, and he does not exercise substantial control over the company’s key affairs.
Example 3: The Financial Backer Without Decision-Making Power
Scenario: David is an investor who has provided significant funding to a construction company. He has no formal role in the business but receives updates on financial performance. The company’s directors make all significant decisions, and David does not instruct or influence them.
Outcome: Even though David has a financial interest in the company, he would not be classified as an influential person because he does not actively participate in the company’s decision-making or operations.
Example 4: The Silent Controller (Hidden Influence)
Scenario: Michael resigned as a director of a construction company after legal issues arose. However, he still attends management meetings, makes financial decisions, and instructs employees on business operations. Employees still consider him the company’s true decision-maker.
Outcome: Even though Michael is no longer a director, he would likely be considered an influential person because he continues to exert control over the company’s affairs.
Example 5: The “Innocent” Spouse Running the Business
Scenario: Lisa’s husband was previously disqualified from the construction industry due to insolvency. To avoid legal restrictions, they registered a new company under Lisa’s name, but her husband still manages the business behind the scenes, makes financial decisions, and directs employees.
Outcome: The QBCC would likely determine that Lisa’s husband is an influential person, even though he holds no formal position. His actions, not his title, define his influence.
This distinction is critical in legal disputes involving QBCC license exclusions and liability for company failures. If someone is accused of being an influential person, they must provide clear evidence that they did not actually control or influence the company’s conduct.
What are the Legal Implications of an Influential Person?
You may be wondering, if an influential person has significant control over a business without the director title, what are their position’s legal implications?
The legal implications of being an influential person in a construction company include:
- Accountability: A key legal implication of being an influential person is becoming accountable for the business in question. If the business fails or is otherwise in legal or financial trouble, an influential person can be held to account, even if they are not the director of the business. This means that their role in the business can extend beyond their specific title in the business if they are found to have substantial control over the affairs and activities of the business. This rule protects directors and businesses by ensuring that particularly influential figures do not escape liability for business failures.
- License Exclusion: Another key legal implication of an influential person in a construction company is the potential for license exclusion. If a company faces insolvency or other issues, such as breaches of construction regulations, an influential person within the business may be classified by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) as an excluded person. This means they are no longer allowed to hold a QBCC license, which is central to legally owning a construction business and performing building projects, for three years. This can significantly affect the ability of the excluded person to work in the industry during this period!
- Extended Liability: Another legal implication of becoming an influential person in a construction business is the potential for extended liability. This means that individuals who indirectly controlled the business from behind the scenes to be barred from holding a QBCC license if they are involved in the failure of the construction business.
- Permanent Exclusion: There is also the potential for becoming permanently excluded from a QBCC license as an influential person. If someone is deemed to be an ‘excluded person’ twice, they can face a permanent ban from the construction industry. This provision of the law is in place to prevent repeat offences from influential persons in construction companies by deterring people from re-entering the industry after exclusion and causing further harm.
- Company Implications: The construction company in question can also face serious legal implications due to an influential person. If the QBCC deems an individual to be an excluded person and holds a position of influence within a company, the company can also be made an “excluded company”. This means that the license of the company can also be cancelled by the QBCC, which will prevent the business from operating within the construction industry. By excluding companies involved with excluded people, the QBCC protects consumers from potentially problematic companies, ultimately protecting the construction business.
Who Is at Risk?
Senior Project Managers – Approve budgets, select subcontractors, and oversee project execution. If their decisions impact the company’s financial health, they could be classified as influential persons.
Financial Officers / CFOs – Control company accounts, approve payments and structure financial strategies. They may be deemed influential if they have significant authority over financial matters.
Operations Managers & Senior Employees – If they issue instructions that are followed company-wide, they could be considered influential. This includes managers who regularly advise the director or make key business decisions.
Real-Life Example: When an Employee Becomes an Influential Person
Scenario:
- Sarah is a senior financial officer at a construction company.
- She approves major purchases, negotiates loans, and decides payment schedules.
- The building company goes into liquidation, and the QBCC investigates.
- They find that Sarah had substantial control over financial decisions.
Outcome:
- Despite being an employee, Sarah is classified as an influential person.
- She loses the ability to work for a QBCC-licensed company for three years.
Senior employees can be classified as influential persons, even without formal executive roles.
Project managers, CFOs, and operations managers must be careful about their decision-making authority.
Being deemed an influential person can result in industry bans, limiting career opportunities.
What is an Excluded Individual in the QBCC Act?
An excluded individual is someone the QBCC has disqualified from holding specific positions of influence in a construction company. This is generally a result of bankruptcy, insolvency, or other legal or financial issues in a business to which they were a key authority figure.
When someone is deemed to be an excluded individual, they cannot act as the director, manager, or an influential person of a construction company.
The Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 defines an excluded individual under section 56AC as:
(1) This section applies to an individual if—
(a) the individual takes advantage of the laws of bankruptcy or becomes bankrupt (“relevant bankruptcy event”); and
(b) 3 years have not elapsed since the relevant bankruptcy event happened.
(2) This section also applies to an individual if—
(a) a construction company, for the benefit of a creditor—
(i) has a provisional liquidator, liquidator, administrator or controller appointed; or
(ii) is wound up, or is ordered to be wound up; and
(b) 3 years have not elapsed since the event mentioned in paragraph (a) (i) or (ii) (“relevant company event”) happened; and
(c) the individual—
(i) was, when the relevant company event happened, a director or secretary of, or an influential person for, the construction company; or
(ii) was, within the period of 2 years immediately before the relevant company event happened, a director or secretary of, or an influential person for, the construction company.
How Can Financial Failure Impact a Company?
If a company enters liquidation, administration, or insolvency, its directors, secretaries, and influential persons can be banned from holding a QBCC license for three years. They face a permanent industry ban if they have been involved in two failed companies.
Excluded Company Status
A company associated with an excluded person can also be classified as an excluded company, leading to license cancellation. This prevents banned individuals from hiding behind new corporate structures to continue operating.
Interstate Companies and Cross-Border Issues
Even if a company only operates outside of Queensland, it can still be deemed a construction company under QBCC rules if:
- It has a director or influential person who is also associated with a QBCC-licensed company in Queensland.
- The QBCC determines that its financial instability poses a risk to Queensland’s industry.
Real-Life Example: The Midson Construction Case
- Midson Construction (Qld) Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QSC 199 (Midson).
- Vickers v Queensland Building and Construction Commission & Ors [2019] QCA 66 (Vickers).
In the first case, Midson Construction (NSW) Pty Ltd was placed into liquidation and had not carried on construction or building services in Queensland at any relevant time.
Midson Construction (Qld) Pty Ltd and Midson Construction (NSW) Pty Ltd had one common director (Michael Anthony Vickers) and as a result of Midson Construction (NSW) going into liquidation Midson & Michael Anthony Vickers were sent a Notice of Reasons for a proposed cancellation of a builder’s licence.
The primary issues in the case were:
- Whether Midson Construction (NSW) Pty Ltd was a construction company under section 56AC of the QBCC Act.
- Whether section 56AC was constitutionally valid.
- Whether delegating authority within the QBCC Act to the officer who made the decision was valid.
The Supreme Court of Queensland found in favour of the QBCC on all counts. The court held that:
- Midson NSW was a construction company under the Act because it carried out building work in New South Wales.
- Section 56AC of the QBCC Act was constitutionally valid as it aimed to protect Queensland consumers rather than regulate interstate conduct.
- The delegation of authority to the officer who made the decision was lawful and valid.
As a result, the application by Midson Construction (Qld) Pty Ltd and Mr Vickers was dismissed. Mr Vickers appealed.
In the appeal, Vickers argued that the New South Wales company did not qualify as a “construction company” under section 56AC(7) of the QBCC Act, asserting that the definition should be limited to companies undertaking construction activities within Queensland.
He also contended that section 56AC was constitutionally invalid because it purported to regulate conduct outside Queensland, which he argued was beyond the legislative power of the Queensland Parliament.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the primary judge’s decision. The court held that the plain and ordinary meaning of “in this or another State” in section 56AC(7) indicated that the QBCC Act applies to companies carrying out building work or services within Queensland and in other states.
The court also found that section 56AC was constitutionally valid, as it was within the legislative power of the Queensland Parliament to regulate the licensing of builders in Queensland, including considering the conduct of companies and individuals associated with building activities in other states.
In 2019, Mr Vickers became an excluded individual.
Relevant Queensland Case Law
AK Group Qld Pty Ltd and Anor v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2020] QCAT 501
This case concerned the question of “whether an individual was an ‘influential person’ within the meaning of s4AA of the Act immediately after ceasing to be a director”.
Andrew Leiper was the director of AKCL, which was said to be solvent when he ceased to be its director. However, QBCC found that Mr Leiper was an ‘excluded person’ under section 56AF of the QBCC Act.
The question of the matter was when Mr Leiper ceased to be the company director, did he become an influential person? It was ultimately found by QTAC that Mr Leiper was not an ‘influential person’ immediately after he ceased to be a director. QCAT said at [22]:
I find that there is no evidence that Mr Leiper in fact exercised any control or substantially influenced AKLC’s conduct following Mr Leiper’s resignation as director and secretary of AKLC … Consequently, I find that Mr Leiper was not an ‘influential person’ immediately after he ceased to be a director of AKLC on 23 April 2018.
JM Kelly Builders Pty Ltd & Ors v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QCAT 333
This case concerned whether an individual was an influential person for other companies in a group construction company. Mr Geoffrey Murphy was the director of the company Project Builders, which was part of a group of companies and was liquidated under his control.
Due to his position in the company during its liquidation, the QBCC deemed Mr Murphy an excluded person, which he accepted without appeal or judicial review.
The committee also deemed Mr Murphy an ‘influential person’ in the other companies in the construction group, deeming all of the companies to be ‘excluded companies. Mr Murphy later resigned as the company director, and his business holdings were transferred to his wife.
The commission argued that Mr Murphy remained an influential person despite the transfer of ownership. Despite this, QCAT decided that the exclusions on the group companies and Mr Murphy’s position as an influential person should be set aside. QCAT said at [42]:
I accept this submission and as I make this decision de novo, the four decisions relating to Geoff as an influential individual in the other companies of the Group will be set aside (OCR applications 100 – 103/16).
In this case, Mr Moss was appointed the director of All Pro Australia Engineering and Construction Pty Ltd in 2014 and resigned from his position in 2016.
In 2018, administrators were appointed to All Pro. QBCC considered Mr Moss an excluded individual and, due to his holding of 50% of the company’s shares, an influential person in All Pro. As such, QBCC deemed All Pro to be an excluded company under s56AC of the QBCC Act.
However, QCAT found that Mr Moss was unaware of his shareholding in All Pro and concluded that, despite his 50% shareholding, Mr Moss was not an influential person in respect of All Pro at any relevant time for the purpose of the application of s 56AC. QCAT said at [18]:
Mr Moss remained a 50% shareholder of All Pro during the two-year period preceding the appointment of administrators. I find Mr Moss was unaware of his shareholding in All Pro however during that period. Nothing suggests he controlled or had any influence at all over the conduct of the affairs of All Pro from very shortly after the company commenced in 2014 through to when administrators were appointed in 2018. That contention is not challenged by the Commission. I find that to be the case. As such I conclude that, despite his 50% shareholding, Mr Moss was not an influential person in respect of All Pro at any relevant time for the purpose of the application of s 56AC.
Walker v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2014] QCAT 228
In this case, Mr Alan Walker was the general manager of a company. The company appointed liquidators, which was an action relevant to the QBCC to consider the business to be excluded under s56AC of the QBCC Act.
However, Mr Walker appealed this decision, stating that “he did not have the ability to either control or substantially influence the conduct of Granitgard’s affairs”. Mr Walker provided evidence from Mr Sapsford, the director of the business, that he “did not seek his input into any decisions about the finances or the general day to day running of the Company”, and he acted as “the Queensland contact for the Company”.
QCAT accepted this statement, setting aside QBCC’s decision to consider Mr Walker an excluded person and the company an excluded company. QCAT said at [25] and [26]:
In Mr Walker’s circumstances, it is difficult to overlook the statements made by Mr Sapsford about Mr Walker’s lack of ability to influence Grantigard, consistent with the representations made by Mr Walker himself. There are no matters of considerable significance capable of supporting a contrary view. The Tribunal has found no basis upon which it could decline to accept Mr Sapsford’s express statement that Mr Walker had no actual authority … The Commission’s decision of 8 May 2013 that Mr Walker is an Excluded Individual as the result of the appointment of liquidators to Grantigard is set aside.
McClintock v Queensland Building Services Authority [2011] QCATA 310
In this case, Mr McClintock held 99% of the shares in the company, Crescent Couriers Pty Ltd, to which he was formally the director and the nominee builder. The QBCC considered Mr McClintock to be an influential person in the business based on his holding of a large majority of the shares.
QCAT agreed with the QBCC, stating that his holding of 99% of the shares was sufficient evidence to determine him to be an influential person. QCAT said at [43] and [44]:
Accordingly, although Mr McClintock was denied procedural fairness in respect of the produced documents, he was an influential person. The decision of the tribunal to affirm the decision of the Authority to categorise him as an excluded individual was correct … Therefore, the decision of the tribunal is confirmed.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Understanding the role of an influential person under the QBCC Act is crucial for construction professionals, as misclassification can lead to serious legal and financial consequences.
Below are answers to common questions about who qualifies, the risks involved, and how to protect yourself or your company under Queensland’s construction laws.
What is an influential person under the QBCC Act?
An influential person is someone who, while not a director or secretary, controls or substantially influences a construction company’s business. They may hold a senior role such as CEO or general manager or own at least 50% of the shares. However, ownership or a title alone is insufficient—they must also actively participate in decision-making. The QBCC assesses actual control, not just formal positions when determining influential persons.
Can someone be an influential person without holding a formal position?
Yes, a person can be deemed influential even if they do not hold an official title like director or CEO. If they regularly make business decisions, give instructions that are followed, or manage operations behind the scenes, they may qualify. The QBCC investigates individuals who try to hide their influence by using family members or business partners as figureheads. Even without a title, actual control matters more than formal job roles.
Does owning shares automatically make someone an influential person?
No, simply owning shares does not automatically make someone an influential person. A shareholder must also actively participate in key decisions that affect the company’s financial or operational standing. They are unlikely to be classified as influential if they are not involved in business decisions and do not issue instructions. However, they may be deemed influential if they use their shareholding to control the company.
How does the QBCC determine if someone is an influential person?
The QBCC looks at real-world control and influence, not just formal job titles. It considers whether a person makes key business decisions, directs employees, or is seen as a leader by outsiders. If employees, suppliers, or clients view them as the decision-makers, they may be classified as influential. The QBCC also investigates hidden influences, such as a banned individual running a company through a spouse.
What are the consequences of being classified as an influential person?
If a company fails financially, influential persons can be banned from holding a QBCC licence for three years. During this period, they cannot act as directors, secretaries, or influential people in any QBCC-licensed construction company. If involved in two company failures, they may face a lifetime ban from the industry. This rule prevents people from avoiding accountability by running businesses behind the scenes.
What is the difference between an excluded individual and an excluded company?
An excluded individual is a person who has been banned from holding a QBCC licence due to financial failure or misconduct. An excluded company is a company associated with an excluded individual, which means it can lose its QBCC licence. This ensures that banned individuals cannot control businesses through hidden influence. If a company is declared an excluded company, it cannot legally operate in Queensland’s construction industry.
How does the QBCC prevent phoenixing in the construction industry?
Phoenixing occurs when a company is deliberately liquidated to avoid paying debts, creating a new company to continue operations. The QBCC prevents this by banning influential persons linked to failed companies and monitoring hidden control in new businesses. If a banned person tries to operate through a new company under someone else’s name, the QBCC can take legal action. This protects subcontractors, suppliers, and consumers from unethical business practices.
Can a project manager be classified as an influential person?
Yes, if their decisions significantly impact the company’s financial health or operations. Project managers who approve major budgets, negotiate contracts, or control key business functions may be deemed influential persons. However, they are less likely to qualify if they only carry out instructions without making company-wide decisions. Employees must be cautious about their level of authority to avoid unintended legal consequences.
How can a financial officer or CFO avoid being classified as an influential person?
A financial officer should limit their authority over major business decisions unless explicitly authorised. They should document their role to show that final financial decisions rest with the company’s directors or executives. Avoiding signing contracts, approving large transactions, or making high-level financial commitments without director approval can reduce the risk. Employees should seek clear job descriptions in contracts to properly define their role.
Can a company lose its QBCC licence due to an influential person?
Yes, if a person classified as an influential person is banned, the company they are associated with may be declared an excluded company. This means the company’s QBCC licence can be cancelled, preventing it from operating legally. If the company attempts to restructure under a new name with the same hidden control, the QBCC can still investigate. The law is designed to prevent unlicensed individuals from running construction businesses through proxies.
How does interstate business affect QBCC licensing?
A company operating outside Queensland can still be classified as a construction company under QBCC laws if it has a director or influential person associated with a Queensland-licensed company. The Midson Construction case confirmed that interstate business failures could impact Queensland licences. The QBCC assesses whether a company’s financial instability poses a risk to the Queensland construction industry. Even if a company has never built in Queensland, its liquidity issues elsewhere can affect its local licensing.
What happens if an influential person resigns before a company goes into liquidation?
Even if a person resigns before a company fails, they may still be held accountable under the QBCC Act. If they were influential within two years before the company’s insolvency, they could still be banned as an excluded individual. The QBCC investigates whether they retained control informally even after stepping down. Simply resigning does not automatically protect someone from liability.
Can a spouse or family member be used as a front for a banned person?
No, the QBCC closely monitors situations where a banned individual continues to run a business through a spouse, child, or business associate. If the banned person is found to be directing business operations, they can face further penalties. The company can also be declared an excluded company and lose its licence. Attempting to bypass QBCC bans by hiding influence through family members is illegal and will be investigated.
How can senior employees avoid being unintentionally classified as influential persons?
Employees should ensure that their employment contracts clearly limit their decision-making authority. They should document decisions to prove they were acting under director instructions and not making independent financial or strategic choices. It is essential to avoid signing contracts, making executive decisions, or holding themselves out as business leaders. Seeking legal advice on job responsibilities can help protect employees from unintended liability.
What should someone do if they are wrongly classified as an influential person?
If someone is wrongly classified as an influential person, they can challenge the QBCC’s decision through the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). They should gather evidence proving they did not have substantial control over the company. Witness statements, employment contracts, and internal company documents can help demonstrate their lack of influence. Seeking legal advice from a construction law expert can improve their chances of successfully appealing the decision. Contact us for urgent assistance with our building and construction lawyers.
