McCarthy and Building Practitioners Board

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application by Mr Andrew McCarthy for review of a decision by the Building Practitioners Board to postpone his registration as a builder. Mr McCarthy had applied for registration under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992, and the Board, citing concerns about the veracity of his application materials, postponed the grant of registration until March 2017. Mr McCarthy subsequently lodged an application for review of this postponement decision and paid an application fee. However, before the review of the postponement decision was undertaken, the Board granted Mr McCarthy's application for registration.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr McCarthy was entitled to a refund of his application fee and whether his application for review should be dismissed. The central legal issue was whether the proceeding in respect of the application for review had terminated in a manner favourable to Mr McCarthy, a prerequisite for a refund under the relevant legislation. The Tribunal also considered whether the application constituted an abuse of process.

The Tribunal reasoned that while Mr McCarthy had ultimately been granted registration, this outcome did not alter the Board's original decision to postpone his registration. The application for review was specifically directed at the postponement decision, and that decision, though superseded by the subsequent grant of registration, was not overturned or varied in Mr McCarthy's favour. Therefore, the proceeding in respect of the application for review had not terminated favourably for him, and he was not entitled to a refund of the application fee. The Tribunal concluded that the application for review was an abuse of process, as it was effectively rendered moot by the grant of registration, and accordingly dismissed the application.