JUDGE:	Ginnane J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4-5 August 2021, 8, 20 June 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 August 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Draper v Victorian Building Authority
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 487

---

JUDICIAL REVIEW – Decision of the Victorian Building Authority – Plaintiff contracted with builder to build a house – Show cause procedure against building surveyor and building inspector following plaintiff’s complaint – No disciplinary action taken – Whether VBA provided notice and reasons for decision to plaintiff – Amendments to the Building Act –Validity of show cause provisions of Building Act 1993 – Whether disciplinary action should have been taken under pre-amendment or post-amendment Act – Transitional provisions – Plaintiff’s standing to bring proceeding – Whether VBA made jurisdictional errors – VBA’s power to decide the allegations to include in Show Cause Notice – Whether VBA failed to take into account relevant considerations or took into account irrelevant considerations – Whether VBA made errors of fact that were jurisdictional errors – Whether VBA’s decision unreasonable – Whether VBA’s delay amounted to a jurisdictional error – Building Act 1993–2022 ss 1, 24, 178, 179, 182, 182A, 182C, 182D, 182E, 183, 183B, 184, 185A, 193, 197, 198, 199; Building Regulations 2006 regs 301, 302, 1502(a).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In person
For the Defendant	Mr J Stoller	Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background......................................................................................................................................... 4

The legislation.................................................................................................................................... 5

The Building Act........................................................................................................................... 5
Building Regulations.................................................................................................................... 9
The show cause process............................................................................................................... 9
The show cause process against the RBS................................................................................. 11
The Show Cause Notice allegations......................................................................................... 11

Standing............................................................................................................................................. 14

Analysis of Mr Draper’s standing............................................................................................ 15

Mr Draper’s grounds....................................................................................................................... 16

Grounds 1 and 2: Notice and reasons...................................................................................... 17
Mr Draper’s submissions.................................................................................................. 17
VBA’s submissions............................................................................................................ 17
Analysis............................................................................................................................... 18

Grounds 3 and 4: The validity of s 182 of the Building Act.................................................. 20
Mr Draper’s submissions.................................................................................................. 20
VBA’s submissions............................................................................................................ 20
Analysis............................................................................................................................... 20

Ground 12: VBA’s reliance on the post-amendment Building Act...................................... 21
Mr Draper’s submissions.................................................................................................. 21
VBA’s submissions............................................................................................................ 22
Analysis............................................................................................................................... 22

Grounds 5-10, 15-18, 20-21, & 25: Relevant and irrelevant considerations........................ 23
Grounds 5, 6 and 7: Consideration of AS 4440.............................................................. 24
Submissions........................................................................................................... 24
Analysis................................................................................................................. 25

Ground 8: Mr Draper’s statements................................................................................. 27
Submissions........................................................................................................... 27
Analysis................................................................................................................. 28

Ground 9: Personal impact statement............................................................................ 28
Submissions........................................................................................................... 29
Analysis................................................................................................................. 29

Ground 10: Alleged intimidation.................................................................................... 30
Submissions........................................................................................................... 30
Analysis................................................................................................................. 30

Ground 15: Timbertruss email......................................................................................... 31
Submissions........................................................................................................... 34
Analysis................................................................................................................. 34

Ground 16: Load of solar hot water collectors and evaporative cooler..................... 35
Submissions........................................................................................................... 35
Analysis................................................................................................................. 36

Ground 17: Other evidence and MiTek.......................................................................... 37
Submissions........................................................................................................... 37
Analysis................................................................................................................. 38

Ground 18: Section 24(2) of the Building Act................................................................ 39
Submissions........................................................................................................... 40
Analysis................................................................................................................. 42

Ground 20: Evidence of the RBS and the RBI................................................................ 45
Submissions........................................................................................................... 45
Analysis................................................................................................................. 46

Ground 21: VCAT findings.............................................................................................. 46
Submissions........................................................................................................... 47
Analysis................................................................................................................. 47

Ground 25: Purportedly varied contract........................................................................ 48
Submissions...........................................................................................................…

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 Victorian Building Authority

Details

AGLC: Draper v Victorian Building Authority [2022] VSC 487
Case: [2022] VSC 487
Decision Date: 24 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Draper, sought judicial review of the Victorian Building Authority's (VBA) decision not to take disciplinary action against a building surveyor and a building inspector following a complaint Draper made about the construction of a house. Draper argued that the VBA did not provide adequate notice and reasons for its decision, and that it should have taken disciplinary action under either the pre-amendment or post-amendment Building Act 1993. The court was required to decide whether the VBA made jurisdictional errors in its decision-making process, including whether it failed to take into account relevant considerations or took into account irrelevant considerations, made errors of fact that were jurisdictional errors, or made an unreasonable decision.

The court held that the VBA did not make jurisdictional errors in its decision-making process. The court found that the VBA was not required to provide Draper with notice and reasons for its decision, as the Building Act did not require it to do so. The court also held that the VBA's decision not to take disciplinary action was not unreasonable, as it was based on a reasonable interpretation of the Building Act. The court further found that the VBA's delay in making its decision did not amount to a jurisdictional error, as it did not result in any prejudice to Draper. Finally, the court held that the VBA had the power to decide the allegations to include in the Show Cause Notice, and that it did not fail to take into account relevant considerations or take into account irrelevant considerations.

The court dismissed Draper's claim for judicial review and made no orders for costs. The court found that the VBA's decision not to take disciplinary action was valid and that Draper did not have standing to bring the proceeding. The court held that the Building Act's transitional provisions did not apply to Draper's complaint, and that the VBA's decision was not unreasonable. The court found that the VBA's delay in making its decision did not amount to a jurisdictional error, and that the VBA's decision to not take disciplinary action was based on a reasonable interpretation of the Building Act.

Orders