Boyce v Building Professionals Board [2019] NSWCATOD 94

Boyce v Building Professionals Board [2019] NSWCATOD 94

The interests of justice required a stay because the prospects of success and the respondent's earlier failure to suspend were neutral, refusal of a stay would likely have serious and potentially irreversible financial consequences for the applicant and affect employees and current customers, and those interests could be balanced against public safety by restricting Mr Boyce to existing work and modified certificate applications pending review.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review Proceedings Concerning Cancellation of Building Certifier Accreditation / Application for Stay Pending Determination of Substantive Review
Outcome
Conditional stay granted; proceedings listed for directions; applicant given leave to relist if publication notations are not made within seven days.
Legal Topics
['stay of Administrative Decision' 'cancellation of Accreditation' 'professional Misconduct' 'unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'public Interest' 'building Certifier Accreditation']
['administrative Law' 'occupational Regulation' 'building Certification'] ['stay of Administrative Decision' 'cancellation of Accreditation' 'professional Misconduct' 'unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'public Interest' 'building Certifier Accreditation']

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 Proceedings Concerning Cancellation of Building Certifier Accreditation / Application for Stay Pending Determination of Substantive Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal should stay the Building Professionals Board's decision cancelling the applicant's accreditation pending administrative review." 'Whether any stay should be subject to conditions restricting the applicant from accepting new applications for complying development certificates or construction certificates.' 'Whether the respondent should be required to remove references to its decision and conditions from its website and other publications pending review.']

Ratio Decidendi

The interests of justice required a stay because the prospects of success and the respondent's earlier failure to suspend were neutral, refusal of a stay would likely have serious and potentially irreversible financial consequences for the applicant and affect employees and current customers, and those interests could be balanced against public safety by restricting Mr Boyce to existing work and modified certificate applications pending review.

Court Disposition

Conditional stay granted; proceedings listed for directions; applicant given leave to relist if publication notations are not made within seven days.

Orders

  • ['The Decision of the Building Professionals Board dated 3 May 2019 in relation to complaints numbered 29/17, 102/17, 103/17, 35/18 and 75/18, disciplinary action number 469 is stayed, subject to the following condition: Mr Peter Boyce is not authorised to accept any application seeking that he issue a complying...