Queensland Building Services Authority v Wilkins

Link copied
Case Copied 10 min read
CITATION: Queensland Building Services Authority v Wilkins [2012] QCAT 582
PARTIES: Queensland Building Services Authority
v
Brien Arthur Wilkins
APPLICATION NUMBER: OCR060-12
MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters
HEARING DATE: 30 May 2012
HEARD AT: Brisbane
DECISION OF: Dr Bridget Cullen, Member
DELIVERED ON: 16 November 2012
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:

1. Proper grounds exist under s 208 of the Building Act 1975 for the taking of disciplinary action against Mr Wilkins, as he behaved in a way that constituted professional misconduct under the Building Act 1975, by certifying as compliant a pool fence that was not compliant with Australian Standard 1926.1-1993.

2.    Mr Wilkins is reprimanded in relation to this conduct.

3.    Mr Wilkins is to pay a penalty of $4,000.00 (40 penalty units) to the QBSA within 14 days of this order.

CATCHWORDS: OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION – Building – disciplinary proceedings – professional misconduct by pool certifier in circumstances where child drowned as a result of non-compliant fence – reprimand and penalty

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT: Queensland Building Services Authority represented by Mr Simon Formby, in-house legal counsel
RESPONDENT:  Mr Brien Arthur Wilkins self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

The tragic, and preventable, loss of a little girl

  1. The events that unfolded in this matter should cause all Queenslanders to think carefully about pool safety.  Tragically, a non-compliant pool fence resulted in the death of an 18-month old little girl, Alliyah, who was able to access the pool when a garage roller door was left open, providing access to the pool area. 

  2. Alliyah was found by her mother, who had left her unattended for approximately 40 minutes while she was ill in the toilet.  Alliyah’s grandmother performed CPR, but it was too late.  No doubt her mother has reflected on these 40 minutes and what might have happened if she hadn’t been ill that day on countless occasions since her little girl died, on 24 February 2009. 

  3. The Respondent in this matter, Brien Wilkins, is a building certifier who once did work involving pool approvals.  Mr Wilkins had never met Alliyah, her parents or grandparents, and was unaware of her tragic drowning until he was informed some 2 months later by Brisbane City Council Officers investigating the circumstances of Alliyah’s death. 

  4. Sadly, some 8 years earlier, Mr Wilkins, through a subcontractor (Andrew Everett of Alliance Building Approvals Pty Ltd) allowed the pool to be certified.  The final inspection checklist contained the handwritten comment, “Owner confirmed that garage door that opens into pool enclosure has been bolted shut, unable to confirm this on site.”  It was through this open garage door that Alliyah gained access to the pool.

  5. There is no legal language capable of expressing the despair that everyone involved in this sad tale must have experienced.  The tragedy is compounded by the realisation that had the pool fencing been certified in compliance with the regulations, Alliyah would likely still be with her family, and would by now be a thriving pre-schooler.

  6. It is for these reasons that…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Queensland Building Services Authority v Wilkins and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2012] QCAT 582
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Queensland Building Services Authority (QBSA) brought proceedings against Mr Wilkins, a pool certifier, following the death of a child who drowned in a pool after the fence surrounding it was certified as compliant by Mr Wilkins. The dispute involved the alleged professional misconduct by Mr Wilkins in certifying the pool fence as compliant despite it not meeting the standards set out in Australian Standard 1926.1-1993. The case was heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT).

The central legal issues were whether the grounds for disciplinary action against Mr Wilkins were valid under section 208 of the Building Act 1975, and if so, what form that disciplinary action should take. The QCAT had to determine whether Mr Wilkins' actions constituted professional misconduct and, if so, whether the imposition of a reprimand and a penalty was appropriate and proportionate.

The QCAT found that Mr Wilkins' conduct in certifying the pool fence as compliant when it did not meet the relevant standard constituted professional misconduct. The Tribunal held that the QBSA had properly exercised its powers under section 208 of the Building Act 1975 by taking disciplinary action against Mr Wilkins. It was determined that a reprimand and a penalty of $4,000.00 were appropriate sanctions, given the seriousness of the consequences of Mr Wilkins' actions, which resulted in the death of a child.

In conclusion, the Tribunal issued an order that proper grounds existed for disciplinary action against Mr Wilkins. The order included a reprimand and a penalty of $4,000.00, to be paid to the QBSA within 14 days of the order.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Proper grounds exist under s 208 of the Building Act 1975 for the taking of disciplinary action against Mr Wilkins, as he behaved in a way that constituted professional misconduct under the Building Act 1975, by certifying as compliant a pool fence that was not compliant with Australian Standard 1926.1-1993.

2. Mr Wilkins is reprimanded in relation to this conduct.

3. Mr Wilkins is to pay a penalty of $4,000.00 (40 penalty units) to the QBSA within 14 days of this order.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.