CATACOUZINOS and VICTORIAN BUILDING AUTHORITY

This matter concerned an application by the applicant for registration as a Commercial Builder (Limited to structural fit out work) in Victoria under the Mutual Recognition Scheme established by the *Mutual Recognition Act 1992* (Cth). The Victorian Building Authority (the respondent) had granted the applicant registration as a Commercial Builder (Limited to non-structural fit out work) but refused his application for registration as a Commercial Builder (Limited to structural fit out work), finding that his Queensland registration as a Shopfitting (Trade) contractor was not equivalent. The applicant sought a review of this decision.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements for registration in Victoria as a Commercial Builder (Limited to structural fit out work) under the Mutual Recognition Scheme. This required the Tribunal to determine if the activities authorised by the applicant's Queensland Shopfitting (Trade) licence were substantially the same as those authorised by a Victorian Commercial Builder (Limited to structural fit out work) registration. The Tribunal also considered whether a Ministerial Declaration under section 32 of the *Mutual Recognition Act 1992* could establish equivalence, noting that no such declaration covered the applicant's Queensland registration.

The Tribunal reasoned that equivalence is established by comparing the actual activities permitted by each registration, not the legal systems of registration themselves. The phrase "substantially the same" was interpreted to mean "in the main" or "as to the greater part." The Tribunal examined the scope of work for a Queensland Shopfitting (Trade) licence, characterising it as the final finishing works for commercial premises, typically involving interaction with the public before an occupancy certificate is issued. This was contrasted with the Victorian registration sought, which involved structural fit-out work.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the respondent's decision. It found that the activities authorised by the Queensland Shopfitting (Trade) registration were not substantially the same as those authorised by a Victorian Commercial Builder (Limited to structural fit out work) registration, and therefore, the applicant did not meet the requirements for registration in that class under the Mutual Recognition Scheme.