NSW Architects Registration Board v Cserhalmi (No 2)

CITATION:	NSW Architects Registration Board v Cserhalmi (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 282
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT NSW Architects Registration Board RESPONDENT Otto Cserhalmi
FILE NUMBER:	053399
HEARING DATES:	On the papers
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	08/28/2006
DATE OF DECISION:	09/27/2006
BEFORE:	Chesterman M - ADCJ (Deputy President)
CATCHWORDS:	Architect - disciplinary finding - professional misconduct - Architect - disciplinary finding - unsatisfactory professional conduct - Architects Act - Architect - disciplinary finding - unsatisfactory professional conduct - Architects Act - Architect - discriplinary finding - professional misconduct
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Costs
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Architects Act 1921 Architects Act 2003 Retail Leases Act 1994
CASES CITED:	Brooks Maher v Cheung [2001] NSWADT 18 Cripps v G & M Dawson Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 81 Doyle v Registrar, NSW Architects Registration Board (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 251 NSW Architects Registration Board v Cserhalmi [2006] NSWADT 110 PC v University of New South Wales (No 2) [2005] NSWADT 264 Townsend v Chief Executive, State Rail Authority [1999] NSWADT 104
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT P Griffin, barrister RESPONDENT M Davies, solicitor
ORDERS:	The Respondent's application for the costs of these proceedings is dismissed

Introduction

1 This decision relating to costs follows on from a decision of the Tribunal delivered on 13 April 2006: NSW Architects Registration Board v Cserhalmi [2006] NSWADT 110.

2 In that decision, the Tribunal held that that non-compliance with requirements stipulated in the Architects Act 2003 (‘the Architects Act’) deprived it of jurisdiction to hear and determine a disciplinary application brought under the Act by the NSW Architects Registration Board (‘the Board’) against the Respondent, Mr Otto Cserhalmi. Mr Cserhalmi is an architect registered under the Architects Act.

3 In its disciplinary application, the Board sought findings of professional misconduct and/or unsatisfactory professional conduct against Mr Cserhalmi. The application was made following investigation of a complaint lodged with the Registrar of the Board pursuant to s 34 of the Architects Act. Section 46 of this Act provides that the Board ‘may apply to the Tribunal for a disciplinary finding under this Division against an architect with respect to any complaint against the architect’.

4 In objecting to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, counsel for Mr Cserhalmi argued that the broad scope of the power conferred on the Board by s 46 was limited by provisions within s 43. These are to the effect that, following investigation of a complaint, the Board must apply to the Tribunal for a disciplinary finding if satisfied that the architect is guilty of professional misconduct (s 43(3)) and that it may apply to the Tribunal if satisfied that the architect is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct (s 43(2)). In the latter situation, the Board may in the alternative take one or more of the steps enumerated in s 43(4). These include issuing a reprimand or caution and imposing conditions on the architect’s registration. A further provision of relevance is s 43(1), which states as follows:-

(1) After the Board has completed…