Draper v Building Practitioners Board (No 2) - [2021] VSC 384

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2019 04645

SHANNON DRAPER	Plaintiff
v
BUILDING PRACTITIONERS BOARD	First Defendant
VICTORIAN BUILDING AUTHORITY	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	GINNANE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 June 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Draper v Building Practitioners Board (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 384

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Costs – Building Practitioners Board – Adequacy of reasons for Board’s decision – Proceeding dismissed – Plaintiff successful on significant issue – Issues based approach to costs.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Self-represented
For the Second Defendant	Mr J Stoller	Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office

HIS HONOUR:

When I ordered that this proceeding be dismissed and published my reasons,[1] I made directions for written submissions as to costs. This judgment provides my decision on costs. The usual rule is that costs follow the event, which would require Mr Shannon Draper to pay the costs of the Victorian Building Authority (‘VBA’) on a standard basis.
[1]See Draper v Building Practitioners Board [2020] VSC 866.

In the proceeding, Mr Draper sought an order that the first defendant, the Building Practitioners Board (‘BPB’), provide him with a further statement of the reasons for its decision of 20 November 2018, determining an inquiry into the conduct of Mr V Simonds, the principal director of Simonds Homes Pty Ltd, who had entered into a contract with Mr Draper to construct a house at Wallan. Mr Draper had lodged a complaint with the BPB against Mr Simonds.

I decided that Mr Draper was a ‘person affected’ by the Board’s decision, as defined in s 2 of the Administrative Law Act 1978 and therefore had standing to bring the proceeding seeking further reasons. However, I decided that the Board’s reasons were not inadequate and so, despite having established his standing, Mr Draper was ultimately unsuccessful in obtaining the orders he sought. I also found that he did not establish any breach of his Charter rights related to the adequacy of the reasons which would entitle him to any remedy.

The second defendant, the VBA, seeks costs on the ground that costs should follow the event.

Mr Draper’s submissions

Mr Draper advanced a number of reasons why he and the VBA should each bear responsibility for their own costs. I will summarise them now.

He argued that the findings made by the Court justified him in bringing the case. He argued that the Court’s decision about the meaning of the term ‘person affected’ was a matter of public interest, and that made this an important case.

Mr Draper argued that the failure of VBA to respond to his requests to obtain clarification of what a statement of reasons must contain led to confusion. He was required to bring the proceedings to obtain clarification. The Court had accepted that statements on page 2 of the ‘statement of reasons’ provided by…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Draper v Building Practitioners Board (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Draper v Building Practitioners Board (No 2) [2021] VSC 384
Case: [2021] VSC 384
Decision Date: 30 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Draper v Building Practitioners Board (No 2) involved the plaintiff, Draper, contesting a decision by the Building Practitioners Board regarding a disciplinary matter. The dispute was brought before the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the plaintiff sought a review of the Board’s decision. The plaintiff argued that the Board’s decision was inadequately reasoned and sought a declaration that the decision was invalid, along with an order for costs.

The legal issues before the court included whether the Board’s decision was adequately reasoned and if the plaintiff was entitled to costs given that the proceeding was dismissed. The court had to assess the adequacy of the reasons provided by the Board and determine the appropriate approach to costs in the circumstances. The court acknowledged that while the proceeding was dismissed, the plaintiff had succeeded on a significant issue, which was the inadequacy of the reasons provided by the Board.

In its reasoning, the court found that the Board’s decision did indeed lack adequate reasoning, validating the plaintiff’s primary contention. The court emphasised the importance of proper reasoning in administrative decisions and held that the Board’s failure in this regard warranted the declaration sought by the plaintiff. The court then turned to the issue of costs, adopting an issues-based approach. Given that the plaintiff had succeeded on a significant issue, the court ordered the Board to pay the plaintiff’s costs associated with the proceeding. This decision underscored the principle that success on a significant issue can justify an award of costs, even in cases where the overall proceeding is dismissed.

Orders