Minister for Infrastructure and Planning v Conway (No.2) [2004] NSWADT 159

Minister for Infrastructure and Planning v Conway (No.2) [2004] NSWADT 159

Mr Conway was guilty of professional misconduct because he issued construction and occupation certificates for premises that did not comply with key conditions of development consent and the Building Code of Australia, failed to advise the applicant to modify consent where appropriate, and displayed a level of incompetence and disregard for statutory requirements falling far short of that expected of a reasonably competent accredited certifier.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Disciplinary / Liability Judgment
Outcome
The respondent is guilty of professional misconduct.
Legal Topics
['professional Misconduct' 'building Regulation' 'accredited Certifiers' 'construction Certificate' 'development Consent' 'fire Safety' 'interpretation of Statutory Obligations']
['administrative Law' 'professional Discipline'] ['professional Misconduct' 'building Regulation' 'accredited Certifiers' 'construction Certificate' 'development Consent' 'fire Safety' 'interpretation of Statutory Obligations']

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

Disciplinary / Liability Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Conway was guilty of professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct in the exercise of his functions as an accredited certifier' 'Nature and extent of obligations of an accredited certifier when issuing construction and occupation certificates' 'Compliance with fire safety and development consent conditions']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Conway was guilty of professional misconduct because he issued construction and occupation certificates for premises that did not comply with key conditions of development consent and the Building Code of Australia, failed to advise the applicant to modify consent where appropriate, and displayed a level of incompetence and disregard for statutory requirements falling far short of that expected of a reasonably competent accredited certifier.

Court Disposition

The respondent is guilty of professional misconduct.

Orders

  • ['The respondent is guilty of professional misconduct.' 'Directions for filing further evidence or submissions on disciplinary orders within timelines stated.']