Singh v Building Commission NSW [2024] NSWCATOD 7
A stay pending final determination was refused because the applicant did not establish, on the limited evidence provided, that he would suffer irreparable loss or that a stay was required to secure the effectiveness of the review. The Tribunal found the public interest in protecting the community was significant, given the nature of the alleged breaches involving complying development certificates, smoke alarms and flooding requirements, and the applicant's prior disciplinary history. That public interest outweighed inconvenience to the applicant, employees and clients. However, a short conditional stay was appropriate to facilitate replacement of the applicant as Principal Certifier on...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 19 January 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Administrative Review of a Disciplinary Decision Cancelling Registration and Disqualifying a Registered Certifier / Interlocutory Application for Stay Under S 60(2) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (nsw)
- Outcome
- The application for a stay pending finalisation of the review was otherwise dismissed, but the respondent's decision was stayed until 29 January 2024 on limited conditions to permit replacement of the applicant on existing projects.
- Legal Topics
- ['stay of Administrative Decision' 'registered Certifier Disciplinary Action' 'cancellation of Certificate of Registration' 'public Interest' 'unsatisfactory Professional Conduct']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of a Disciplinary Decision Cancelling Registration and Disqualifying a Registered Certifier / Interlocutory Application for Stay Under S 60(2) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (nsw)
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the respondent's disciplinary decision should be stayed pending final determination of the administrative review application." 'Whether a stay was required to secure the effectiveness of the determination of the review application.' 'Whether the applicant had established irreparable loss if a stay were refused.' 'Whether the public interest in protecting the community outweighed the inconvenience and financial impact on the applicant, his employees and clients.' 'Whether a limited conditional stay should be granted to facilitate replacement of the applicant as Principal Certifier on existing projects.']
Ratio Decidendi
A stay pending final determination was refused because the applicant did not establish, on the limited evidence provided, that he would suffer irreparable loss or that a stay was required to secure the effectiveness of the review. The Tribunal found the public interest in protecting the community was significant, given the nature of the alleged breaches involving complying development certificates, smoke alarms and flooding requirements, and the applicant's prior disciplinary history. That public interest outweighed inconvenience to the applicant, employees and clients. However, a short conditional stay was appropriate to facilitate replacement of the applicant as Principal Certifier on...
Court Disposition
The application for a stay pending finalisation of the review was otherwise dismissed, but the respondent's decision was stayed until 29 January 2024 on limited conditions to permit replacement of the applicant on existing projects.
Orders
- ['The decision of the respondent dated 7 December 2023 to take disciplinary action against Gurdeep Singh (Certificate of Registration Number BDC0377) is stayed until 29 January 2024 on the following conditions:' 'The stay is only allowed to the extent that it permits the applicant to be replaced on projects which he...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment