QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND 
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:	Nair v BNM Ahmad Group Pty Ltd [2025] QCAT 127	
PARTIES:	Vijayakumar Sankaran Nair	

(applicant)	

	v	
	BNM AHMAD GROUP PTY LTD	

(respondent)	

APPLICATION NO/S:	BDL259-22	
MATTER TYPE:	Building matters	
DELIVERED ON:	27 March 2025	
HEARING DATE:	On the papers	
HEARD AT:	Brisbane	
DECISION OF:	Senior Member Brown	
ORDERS:	1.	The proceeding is dismissed. 	
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where application made against company which has been deregistered – company not a legal entity – proceedings against a deregistered company a nullity – applicant may apply to have company reinstated to bring further proceedings 
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 601AD(1), s 601AH(1)
NTL Constructions Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2022] QCAT 239	
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)	

REASONS FOR DECISION
[1]	This is a proceeding about a building dispute. 
[2]	The applicant says he engaged the respondent to undertake building work. The applicant claims $27,729.76 being the amount expended by the applicant in having the work completed by alternative contractors. 
[3]	The difficulty facing the applicant is that the respondent has been deregistered. In NTL Constructions Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission the Tribunal explained the consequences of the deregistration of a company:
[4]	The effect of deregistration is that the company ceases to exist: Corporations Act, s 601AD(1). Because the company ceases to exist, it is not a legal entity and it cannot institute or continue legal proceedings brought by it before deregistration. All proceedings brought by or against a deregistered company are a nullity.
…
[6]	The consequence of deregistration is that no step taken in these proceedings can be taken by or against NTL unless the company is reinstated. Until that happens, the course of authority establishes that upon deregistration, any proceedings brought by the deregistered company “abate”, in the sense of being extinguished or annulled.
[7]	ASIC or the Court may reinstate a deregistered company: s 601AH(1), (2). ASIC may do so if satisfied the company should not have been deregistered and the Court may do so if satisfied that it is just that the company’s registration be reinstated. If the company is reinstated, it is taken to have continued in existence as if it had not been deregistered. Any property that is still vested in the Commonwealth or ASIC (including any chose of action) revests in the company: s 601AH(5). 
(footnotes omitted)
[4]	As explained in the above passage the action against the respondent cannot proceed. The respondent, having been deregistered, has ceased to exist as a legal entity. 
[5]	The applicant may take steps to attempt to have the respondent reinstated which, if successful, would enable the applicant to bring a further proceeding against the respondent. Of course, whether this course of action is pursued will depend to a large extent on whether the applicant is likely to enjoy the fruits of a successful claim. 
[6]	The proceeding is dismissed.