Wesson and Victorian Building Authority

This matter concerned an application by Mr. Wesson for registration in Victoria under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth) for various building practitioner classes, including Commercial Builder (limited to medium rise), Domestic Builder (unlimited), Project Manager (domestic), and Building Inspector (unlimited). Mr. Wesson sought this registration based on his existing registration as a Registered Building Practitioner in Western Australia. The Victorian Building Authority (VBA) opposed the application, arguing that the activities authorised by the Western Australian registration were not substantially the same as those permitted by the Victorian registrations sought. The decision was made by Deputy President S A Forgie.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr. Wesson's registration as a Registered Building Practitioner in Western Australia was equivalent to the Victorian registrations he sought, specifically in the categories of Commercial Builder (limited to medium rise), Domestic Builder (unlimited), Project Manager (domestic), and Building Inspector (unlimited), for the purposes of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992. This required a determination of whether the activities authorised under each registration were substantially the same.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on comparing the scope of activities permitted by the respective registrations. Evidence presented by the VBA, including a file note from a VBA officer and extracts from the Western Australian Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety website, indicated that a Registered Building Practitioner in Western Australia was authorised to act as a supervisor employed by a registered contractor, but not to contract to provide building services directly to others. This contrasted with the Victorian registrations, which allowed the holder to enter into contracts and complete building work. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that building inspection work in Victoria was a specialised field requiring specific qualifications and experience not necessarily encompassed by the Western Australian registration. The Tribunal concluded that the activities authorised by the Western Australian registration were not substantially the same as those for the Victorian registrations sought.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the VBA and found that Mr. Wesson was not eligible for registration in Victoria under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 based on his current Western Australian registration.