Rogers and Builders' Registration Board Of Western Australia

The applicant, Mr Rogers, sought review of a decision by the Builders' Registration Board of Western Australia (the Board) refusing his application for registration as a builder under the Builders' Registration Act 1939 (WA) (the Act). The Board's decision was based on Mr Rogers' lack of sufficient experience in the work of a builder elsewhere than in Western Australia, and the conclusion that commercial or domestic fit-out work did not constitute the work of a builder within the meaning of the Act. The Board's decision was influenced by the prior case of Farano and Builders' Registration Board of Western Australia [2006] WASAT 4, which determined that the Board had no power to impose conditions on registrations permitted under section 10(1)(b)(iv)(I) and (II) of the Act to restrict work to specialised areas of building work.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Board had the power to grant conditional registration as a builder, particularly in light of the decision in Farano. The Board argued that the decision in Farano was incorrect and that the Board should have the power to grant conditional licences. The Board contended that the applicant's experience in commercial or domestic fit-out work could constitute the work of a builder, and that the various activities undertaken should be assessed to determine the experience that could be properly taken into account. The court needed to determine whether the Board's interpretation of the Act was correct and if the Board had the power to grant conditional registration.

The court found that the Board's decision to refuse registration was correct and affirmed the decision. The court held that the Board's interpretation of the Act in light of the decision in Farano was accurate. The court found that the Board did not have the power to grant conditional registration as a builder, and that the Board's decision was in accordance with the Act. The court also found that the Board's conclusion that the applicant did not have sufficient experience in the work of a builder elsewhere than in Western Australia was correct. The court held that the applicant's experience in commercial or domestic fit-out work did not constitute the work of a builder within the meaning of the Act. The court found that the Board's decision was reasonable and in accordance with the Act.

The court made several orders, including affirming the Board's decision to refuse registration, granting the Board leave to apply for costs, and setting out the procedure for any application for costs. The court held that the Board's decision was correct and in accordance with the Act, and that the Board did not have the power to grant conditional registration as a builder. The court also held that the applicant did not have sufficient experience in the work of a builder elsewhere than in Western Australia, and that commercial or domestic fit-out work did not constitute the work of a builder within the meaning of the Act.