Building Professionals Board v Cotten [2008] NSWADT 118

Building Professionals Board v Cotten [2008] NSWADT 118

The Tribunal found that the approved plans were inconsistent with the development consent, that the stairway egress arrangement did not comply with BCA clause D1.9(d)(i) because the courtyard lacked direct connection to a public road and the travel distance to the open road was 25 metres, and that the final occupation certificate omitted the Class 6 shop classification and was issued despite a fire egress defect sufficient to make the building not suitable for occupation. These omissions showed a lack of competence and diligence amounting to unsatisfactory professional conduct, but were not so objectively grave as to constitute professional misconduct. A fine and a two-year bar on...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Disciplinary Findings and Orders Under the Building Professionals Act 2005 / Principal Matter; Reasons for Decision and Orders
Outcome
Respondent found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct; professional misconduct not found.
Legal Topics
['accredited Certifiers' 'construction Certificate' 'final Occupation Certificate' 'building Code of Australia Compliance' 'unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'professional Misconduct']
['administrative Law' 'building and Construction' 'professional Discipline'] ['accredited Certifiers' 'construction Certificate' 'final Occupation Certificate' 'building Code of Australia Compliance' 'unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'professional Misconduct']

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 Disciplinary Findings and Orders Under the Building Professionals Act 2005 / Principal Matter; Reasons for Decision and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent's construction certificate approved plans that were inconsistent with the development consent." 'Whether the proposed building depicted in the approved plans failed to comply with clause D1.9(d)(i) of the Building Code of Australia concerning travel by non-fire-isolated stairways.' 'Whether the respondent improperly issued a final occupation certificate when the building was not suitable for occupation in accordance with its Building Code of Australia classification.' 'Whether the proven conduct amounted to professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct.' 'What disciplinary orders should be made under s 34 of the Building Professionals Act 2005.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the approved plans were inconsistent with the development consent, that the stairway egress arrangement did not comply with BCA clause D1.9(d)(i) because the courtyard lacked direct connection to a public road and the travel distance to the open road was 25 metres, and that the final occupation certificate omitted the Class 6 shop classification and was issued despite a fire egress defect sufficient to make the building not suitable for occupation. These omissions showed a lack of competence and diligence amounting to unsatisfactory professional conduct, but were not so objectively grave as to constitute professional misconduct. A fine and a two-year bar on...

Court Disposition

Respondent found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct; professional misconduct not found.

Orders

  • ['The Tribunal finds the Respondent guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct.' 'The respondent is ordered to pay to the Board a fine of $5,500 (50 penalty units).' 'The respondent cannot apply for a certificate of accreditation within two years from the date of this order.']