Wang v Building Professionals Board [2019] NSWCATOD 174

Wang v Building Professionals Board [2019] NSWCATOD 174

Mr Wang's four non-compliance notices were defective because they specified window and door modifications using the restricted access from the dwelling method instead of requiring installation of a barrier separating the pool from the dwelling as required by the current legislative scheme. Reliance on BCS software and oral discussions with owners did not discharge the statutory duty to state the correct steps in the notices. His failure to comply with ss 7 and 22E of the Swimming Pools Act 1992, failure to meet the expected standard of competence and diligence, and failure to comply with code of conduct requirements constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct. A $20,000 fine was...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Disciplinary Action Against an Accredited Certifier / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
The respondent's decision was set aside and substituted disciplinary orders were made requiring further training and payment of $15,000 to the Board.
Legal Topics
['accredited Swimming Pool Certifier' 'unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'swimming Pool Barrier Compliance' 'non Compliance Notices' 'disciplinary Penalty']
['administrative Law' 'occupational Regulation' 'building and Construction Regulation'] ['accredited Swimming Pool Certifier' 'unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'swimming Pool Barrier Compliance' 'non Compliance Notices' 'disciplinary Penalty']

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

Administrative Review of Disciplinary Action Against an Accredited Certifier / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the notices of non-compliance issued by Mr Wang were defective because they did not require a barrier separating the pool from the dwelling.' 'Whether Mr Wang was guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct under s 19 of the Building Professionals Act 2005.' 'What disciplinary penalty was appropriate.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Wang's four non-compliance notices were defective because they specified window and door modifications using the restricted access from the dwelling method instead of requiring installation of a barrier separating the pool from the dwelling as required by the current legislative scheme. Reliance on BCS software and oral discussions with owners did not discharge the statutory duty to state the correct steps in the notices. His failure to comply with ss 7 and 22E of the Swimming Pools Act 1992, failure to meet the expected standard of competence and diligence, and failure to comply with code of conduct requirements constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct. A $20,000 fine was...

Court Disposition

The respondent's decision was set aside and substituted disciplinary orders were made requiring further training and payment of $15,000 to the Board.

Orders

  • ['The decision of the respondent is set aside.' 'The applicant is to complete within 60 days of the date of this decision the E1 Accredited Certifier Swimming Pool Certification Course as identified by the Board on its website.' 'The applicant is to pay to the Board the sum of $15,000 within 60 days of the date of...