Andriotis and Building Practitioners Board

This matter concerned an application by Mr Andriotis for registration as a building practitioner in Victoria under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth). The Building Practitioners Board (BPB) opposed the application, raising concerns about Mr Andriotis' character and the validity of his qualifications and experience. The decision was made by Senior Member Egon Fice of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Andriotis met the good character requirement for registration as a building practitioner in Victoria, and whether the exception provision in section 17(2) of the Mutual Recognition Act applied to the good character requirement under section 170 of the Building Act 1993 (Vic). The Tribunal was required to assess the evidence presented regarding Mr Andriotis' conduct, his understanding of registration requirements, and the authenticity of his supporting documentation and references.

The Tribunal considered the definition of "character" in both English and Australian legal contexts, referencing Lord Denning's explanation in *Plato Films Ltd v Speidel* and Gummow J's comments in *Melbourne v The Queen*. It was established that character, in this context, relates to the estimate put upon an individual by others and their overall quality, judged by acts, motives, and behaviour, rather than simply a summation of acts or a disposition to perform specific acts. The Tribunal found that Mr Andriotis had not demonstrated respect for and compliance with the law, nor had he acted diligently and honestly with the BPB and New South Wales Fair Trading. The Tribunal concluded that the good character provision in the Building Act was not based on qualifications or experience, and therefore the exception in section 17(2) of the Mutual Recognition Act did not apply.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that Mr Andriotis was not of good character. This conclusion was based on significant doubts cast by the evidence regarding his qualifications as a waterproofer, his work experience, and the authenticity of professional references. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in his disclosures, the questionable value of a waterproofing certificate, and the suspicious similarities and errors in supporting letters, leading to the finding that he had not dealt forthrightly, honestly, and with candour.