Hans v Building Professionals Board [2008] NSWADT 285

Hans v Building Professionals Board [2008] NSWADT 285

The Tribunal concluded that while Mr Hans’s conduct amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct, the protection of the public did not require a further fine for the Bundanoon property (given previous, more serious misconduct for which Mr Hans had already been reprimanded, fined $11,000, and had his accreditation restricted). A reprimand was appropriate for all three matters. For the Exeter and Kangaloon properties, a fine of $500 each was warranted in addition to a reprimand, to deter future breaches and protect the public, as this conduct disclosed a disregard for unambiguous regulatory provisions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of Disciplinary Finding / Principal Matter / Decision on Merits
Outcome
The Board's original decisions are set aside. In substitution, Mr Hans is reprimanded for each property. For the Kangaloon and Exeter properties, Mr Hans must pay $500 each to the Board within 3 months; for the Bundanoon property, he is reprimanded only and no fine is imposed.
Legal Topics
['accredited Certifiers' 'complying Development Certificates' 'unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'penalty for Disciplinary Breaches']
['administrative Law' 'planning and Development Law' 'professional Discipline'] ['accredited Certifiers' 'complying Development Certificates' 'unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'penalty for Disciplinary Breaches']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Review of Disciplinary Finding / Principal Matter / Decision on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Board's disciplinary findings and penalties were the 'correct and preferable' decisions under s 63 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1998" 'Whether a reprimand and/or fine is the appropriate penalty for unsatisfactory professional conduct by an accredited certifier']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal concluded that while Mr Hans’s conduct amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct, the protection of the public did not require a further fine for the Bundanoon property (given previous, more serious misconduct for which Mr Hans had already been reprimanded, fined $11,000, and had his accreditation restricted). A reprimand was appropriate for all three matters. For the Exeter and Kangaloon properties, a fine of $500 each was warranted in addition to a reprimand, to deter future breaches and protect the public, as this conduct disclosed a disregard for unambiguous regulatory provisions.

Court Disposition

The Board's original decisions are set aside. In substitution, Mr Hans is reprimanded for each property. For the Kangaloon and Exeter properties, Mr Hans must pay $500 each to the Board within 3 months; for the Bundanoon property, he is reprimanded only and no fine is imposed.

Orders

  • ['In relation to the Kangaloon property, Mr Hans is reprimanded and ordered to pay to the Board within 3 months the sum of $500.' 'In relation to the Exeter property, Mr Hans is reprimanded and ordered to pay to the Board within 3 months the sum of $500.' 'In relation to the Bundanoon property, Mr Hans is...