Nandacumaran and Victorian Building Authority

The applicant sought review of a decision by the Victorian Building Authority (VBA) to refuse his application for registration as a building practitioner under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth). The VBA, acting as the Local Registration Authority in Victoria, refused the application because the applicant was unable to make the declaration required by section 19(2)(e) of the Act. This was due to the prior cancellation of his registration as a building practitioner in both Victoria and New South Wales as a result of disciplinary proceedings.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to registration in Victoria under the mutual recognition regime, given that his registration in another state had been cancelled due to disciplinary action. Specifically, the court had to determine if the applicant's circumstances prevented him from satisfying the requirements of section 19(2)(e) of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth), which mandates that an applicant declare that their registration in any state has not been cancelled or suspended as a result of disciplinary action.

The court reasoned that the applicant's prior disciplinary proceedings in Victoria, which led to the cancellation of his registration there, subsequently resulted in the cancellation of his registration in New South Wales under section 33 of the Act. Consequently, the applicant could not truthfully declare, as required by section 19(2)(e), that his registration in any state was not cancelled as a result of disciplinary action. The court found that the VBA had acted appropriately in refusing the application based on these facts.

The Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision of the Victorian Building Authority.