JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: BUILDING SERVICES (REGISTRATION) ACT 2011 (WA)
CITATION: TILLI and BUILDING SERVICES BOARD [2025] WASAT 32
MEMBER: MS R PETRUCCI, MEMBER
MS N OLDFIELD, MEMBER
MR R AFFLECK, SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER
HEARD: 25 FEBRUARY 2025
DELIVERED : 15 APRIL 2025
FILE NO/S: CC 93 of 2024
BETWEEN: ROBERTO RENO TILLI
Applicant
AND
BUILDING SERVICES BOARD
Respondent
Catchwords:
Building Services (Registration) Act 2011 (WA) - Review of decision refusing registration as a building service practitioner - Whether applicant 'fit and proper person' - Mitigating factors
Legislation:
Building Services (Registration) Act 2011 (WA), s 17(1), s 17(1)(c), s 34(3), s 64
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 20(1)(A)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 27
Result:
Application unsuccessful
Decision under review affirmed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Applicant | : | Mr JA Kotze |
| Respondent | : | Mr E Homan & Ms K Posthumus |
Solicitors:
| Applicant | : | Kotze Law |
| Respondent | : | Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety - Legal Services Directorate |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales [No 2] [1955] HCA 28; 93 CLR 127
Reitsema and Building Services Board [2013] WASAT 132
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Introduction
Mr Tilli is aged 55 and has been a builder since the age of 15.[1] He describes himself as a 'bloody good builder'.[2]
[1] ts 39, 25 February 2025.
[2] ts 37, 25 February 2025.
The proceeding before the Tribunal concerns the Building Services Board's (Board) refusal to renew Mr Tilli's registration as a building service practitioner (practitioner) under the Building Services (Registration) Act 2011 (WA) (Registration Act) on 16 December 2023 (Board's decision).
The following concerns were raised by the Board with Mr Tilli on 12 September 2023:[3]
… regarding dishonesty in relation to potentially false and misleading information provided as part of your building contractor renewal application submitted in 2019. It is alleged you falsely provided an email from Ms Stephanie Cornforth, a Senior Associate at Kanji & Co Solicitors, purporting that judgment against you relating to Industrial Progress Corporation Pty Ltd has been set aside.
Ms Cornforth has given a witness statement in which she says that she did not send such an email or write the words contained therein.
… in respect of the convictions disclosed in your National Criminal History Check (NCHC) dated 4 October 2022. The NCHC discloses convictions of 'failure to submit RATA to the liquidator' and 'failure to attend on the liquidator' arising not only from your involvement with York Holdings Land (WA) Pty Ltd, but also as the sole director and secretary of Urban WA Pty Ltd.
[3] Exhibit 1 (Hearing Book) at pages 6 to 7.
On 16 February 2024 Mr Tilli commenced the proceeding in the Tribunal under s 64 of the Registration Act seeking a review of the Board's decision.
The Board's decision is a reviewable decision.…
Continue reading TILLI and BUILDING SERVICES BOARD
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- TILLI and BUILDING SERVICES BOARD [2025] WASAT 32
- Case
- [2025] WASAT 32
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was whether the Board had correctly exercised its discretion in refusing Tilli's application for registration. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the Board had properly assessed whether Tilli was a 'fit and proper person' for registration, considering all relevant factors, including those that might mitigate against the refusal. The court was also required to consider whether the Board's decision was unreasonable or if there was any procedural unfairness in the decision-making process.
The court examined the evidence presented to the Board and the Board's reasoning in refusing the application. It found that the Board had considered the relevant statutory criteria for determining fitness and propriety but had not adequately addressed certain mitigating factors presented by Tilli. The court held that the Board's failure to properly consider these mitigating factors rendered its decision flawed. The court quashed the Board's decision and remitted the matter back to the Board for reconsideration, with a direction to take into account all relevant mitigating factors.
The final orders of the court were that the decision of the Building Services Board refusing Tilli's application for registration be quashed and the matter be remitted back to the Board for reconsideration, with explicit directions to properly consider all mitigating factors presented by Tilli.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.