Hanna and Building Practitioners Board

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Hanna against a decision of the Building Practitioners Board of Victoria (BPB) to refuse his registration as a building practitioner. The BPB's refusal was based on its finding that Mr Hanna had failed to satisfy the requirement of being of good character, as stipulated by section 170(1)(c) of the Building Act 1993.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the BPB had acted within its powers when refusing Mr Hanna's registration. Specifically, the court had to determine if the BPB was entitled to reassess Mr Hanna's New South Wales registration for defects when considering his application under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (MR Act), or if its inquiries were limited to the formal requirements of the application notice and the existence of his registration in New South Wales.

The court considered the provisions of the MR Act concerning mutual recognition of registrations. It was established that a person registered in one state for an occupation is generally entitled to registration in another state for an equivalent occupation by lodging a notice in accordance with section 19 of the MR Act. The court found that the BPB had properly postponed the grant of Mr Hanna's registration in accordance with section 21(3) of the MR Act and had made its decision to refuse registration within the maximum permitted seven-month period. Consequently, the deeming provision in section 22(3) of the MR Act, which would have entitled Mr Hanna to registration if the BPB failed to act within the prescribed time, did not apply. The court also addressed Mr Hanna's submission that the BPB was not permitted to reassess his New South Wales registration for defects, noting that the BPB's inquiries were limited to determining his registration status and the formal validity of his notice.