Victorian Building Authority v Andriotis

The Victorian Building Authority appealed a decision concerning the registration of Mr. Andriotis as a waterproofer in Victoria. Mr. Andriotis, who was already registered as a waterproofer in New South Wales, sought registration in Victoria under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth) (MRA). The Victorian Building Practitioners Board (the Board) refused his application, citing non-compliance with the "good character" requirement stipulated in the Victorian Building Act 1993 (Vic). The High Court of Australia was required to determine whether the MRA permitted the Board to refuse registration based on Mr. Andriotis' character.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the MRA, specifically section 20(1) which establishes an entitlement to registration in a second State based on registration in a first State, allowed for a discretion to refuse registration on character grounds. Furthermore, the Court had to consider whether the "good character" requirement under the Victorian Act constituted a law regulating the manner of carrying on an occupation that was not based on a "qualification" or "experience" relating to fitness to carry on that occupation, as contemplated by section 17(2) of the MRA.

The High Court reasoned that section 20(1) of the MRA establishes a clear entitlement to registration in the second State, provided the applicant has lodged the required notice. The Court found that this provision leaves little room for discretion based on an applicant's character or prior conduct. It held that the "good character" requirement in the Victorian Act was a law based on a qualification relating to fitness to carry on the occupation, and therefore fell within the exception provided by section 17(2) of the MRA. Consequently, the MRA did not permit the Board to consider Mr. Andriotis' character when assessing his application for registration.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.