Levick v Building Professionals Board [2018] NSWCATOD 125

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Levick v Building Professionals Board [2018] NSWCATOD 125 Hearing dates: 25 July 2018 Date of orders: 08 August 2018 Decision date: 08 August 2018 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: K Ransome, Senior Member N Halstead, General Member Decision: 1. The name of the respondent is amended to Building Professionals Board.

2. The decision of the respondent is set aside.

3. The applicant is to pay to the Board the sum of $50,000 within 60 days. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – accredited certifier – finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct – conduct not sufficiently serious to amount to professional misconduct – appropriate penalty Legislation Cited: Building Professionals Act 2005 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 Cases Cited: Building Professionals Board v Cogo [2008] NSWADT 119 Burwood Council v Ralan Burwood Pty Ltd (No 3) [2014] NSWCA 404 Lesnewski v Mosman Municipal Council [2004] NSWLEC 99 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Glenn Levick (Applicant) Building Professionals Board (Respondent) Representation: Lovegrove & Cotton, Solicitors (Applicant) NSW Fair Trading (Respondent) File Number(s): 2018/00105883

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. This matter concerns disciplinary action against an accredited certifier, Mr Glenn Levick. On 13 March 2013, acting under s 31(4)(f) of the Building Professionals Act 2005 (the Act), the Building Professionals Board (the Board) ordered Mr Levick to pay a fine of $110,000 within 28 days. The imposition of the penalty followed a finding that Mr Levick was guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct as those terms are defined in s 19 of the Act. 2. The decision to impose the fine came after investigation of a complaint against Mr Levick in relation to a construction certificate issued by him on 3 February 2015 for a development at Soldiers Point. The Board found that Mr Levick had issued a construction certificate in contravention of cl 145(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 which provides that a certifying authority must not issue a construction certificate for building work unless the design and construction of the building (as depicted in the plans and specifications) is not inconsistent with the development consent. 3. Mr Levick accepts that he should not have issued the construction certificate and agrees that he is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct. In our view, those concessions are correctly made. Mr Levick does not, however, agree that his conduct amounted to professional misconduct and he challenges the severity of the penalty imposed upon him.