Building Professionals Board v Cogo [2009] NSWADT 10

Building Professionals Board v Cogo [2009] NSWADT 10

The Tribunal was satisfied that all three allegations were proven. Mr Cogo issued certificates for a warehouse redevelopment involving removal of sprinkler protection and reliance on smoke detection and alarm despite strong NSWFB objections, inadequacies in the Arup Fire report, inadequate treatment of perimeter access, and failure to obtain or use the required properly informed independent accredited certifier concurrence. A reasonably competent accredited certifier of his status would not have authorised work to proceed on the basis of the January 2002 Arup report and would not have ignored the NSWFB criticisms to the extent that occurred, particularly by failing to provide them to Mr...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Disciplinary Findings and Orders Against an Accredited Certifier Under the Building Professionals Act 2005 / Decision After Hearing and Proposed Consent Orders Under Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997, S 86
Outcome
Respondent found guilty of Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct, reprimanded and fined $11,000.
Legal Topics
['accredited Certifier Discipline' 'construction Certificate' 'final Occupation Certificate' 'unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'fire Safety Alternative Solution' 'building Code of Australia Performance Requirements Ep1.4 and Cp9' 'nsw Fire Brigades Reports' 'perimeter Access for Fire Brigade Vehicles']
['administrative Law' 'professional Discipline' 'building and Construction' 'planning and Development'] ['accredited Certifier Discipline' 'construction Certificate' 'final Occupation Certificate' 'unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'fire Safety Alternative Solution' 'building Code of Australia Performance Requirements Ep1.4 and Cp9' 'nsw Fire Brigades Reports' 'perimeter Access for Fire Brigade Vehicles']

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 Against an Accredited Certifier Under the Building Professionals Act 2005 / Decision After Hearing and Proposed Consent Orders Under Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997, S 86

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent failed to adhere to professional standards reasonably expected of an accredited certifier by authorising an inadequate fire safety solution for the internal space of the warehouse.' 'Whether the respondent failed to ensure adequate perimeter access for Fire Brigade vehicles in the event of fire.' 'Whether the respondent improperly relied on a report from an independent consultant who was not qualified as an accredited certifier at the appropriate level when deciding not to follow New South Wales Fire Brigades advice.' 'Whether the proven conduct should be categorised as professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct.' 'What disciplinary orders should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was satisfied that all three allegations were proven. Mr Cogo issued certificates for a warehouse redevelopment involving removal of sprinkler protection and reliance on smoke detection and alarm despite strong NSWFB objections, inadequacies in the Arup Fire report, inadequate treatment of perimeter access, and failure to obtain or use the required properly informed independent accredited certifier concurrence. A reasonably competent accredited certifier of his status would not have authorised work to proceed on the basis of the January 2002 Arup report and would not have ignored the NSWFB criticisms to the extent that occurred, particularly by failing to provide them to Mr...

Court Disposition

Respondent found guilty of Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct, reprimanded and fined $11,000.

Orders

  • ['The Respondent is guilty of Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct.' 'The Respondent is reprimanded.' 'The Respondent is fined $11,000.']