Treble v Building Professionals Board [2019] NSWCATOD 34

Treble v Building Professionals Board [2019] NSWCATOD 34

The applicant was guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct by issuing a CDC based on inadequately compliant documents, unreasonably treating a habitable room as a ‘garage’ for the purpose of floor area exclusion, and not making proper inquiry into the use of an existing shed despite clear indications it might be used as a dwelling; this conduct fell below the expected standard of diligence and competence and warranted a reprimand and fine.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Substantive Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Decision varied; applicant reprimanded and fined
Legal Topics
['accredited Certifier Discipline' 'complying Development Certificates' 'unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'secondary Dwellings' 'penalty Assessment']
['administrative Law' 'occupational Regulation' 'planning and Environment'] ['accredited Certifier Discipline' 'complying Development Certificates' 'unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'secondary Dwellings' 'penalty Assessment']

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 / Substantive Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant was guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct in relation to documents and plans submitted (Additional Matter A)' "Whether the applicant's certification of a 'garage' excluded from floor area was reasonable (Additional Matter B)" 'Whether the applicant made necessary inquiries about the use of an existing shed on the property (Additional Matter C)' 'What is the appropriate disciplinary order']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct by issuing a CDC based on inadequately compliant documents, unreasonably treating a habitable room as a ‘garage’ for the purpose of floor area exclusion, and not making proper inquiry into the use of an existing shed despite clear indications it might be used as a dwelling; this conduct fell below the expected standard of diligence and competence and warranted a reprimand and fine.

Court Disposition

Decision varied; applicant reprimanded and fined

Orders

  • ['The decision of the Building Professionals Board is varied as follows:' '(a) Pursuant to s 31(4)(a) of the Building Professionals Act 2005 the applicant is reprimanded;' '(b) Pursuant to s 31(4)(f) of the Building Professionals Act 2005 the applicant is to pay to the Building Professionals Board a fine of $8,000...