[2006] FCAFC 142
SZFDE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) 232 CLR 189
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
[2006] FCAFC 142
SZFDE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) 232 CLR 189
Judgment (4 paragraphs)
[1]
SOLICITORS:
Houston Dearn O'Connor (Applicant)
Project Lawyers (First and Second Respondents)
Mills Oakley (Third and Fourth Respondents)
File Number(s): 20/31966
[2]
EX TEMPORE Judgment
The Applicant Council's (the Council) amended summons seeks a declaration that a purported interim occupation certificate J190087 (IOC) dated 23 December 2019 for occupation of 56-60 Burwood Road Burwood New South Wales 2134 excluding levels 2 and 10 (the premises) is void and of no effect and some costs orders. I gave leave to the Council to file it in court and rely on it in the proceedings. There was no objection from any of the respondents to that course. In support of that application the parties have helpfully prepared a statement of agreed facts (SOAF) which was marked Ex A. The respondents do not oppose the relief sought.
The SOAF provides:
1. The development the subject of the proceedings relates to a 11-storey mixed use development constructed at 56-60 Burwood Road Burwood NSW 2134 consisting of a hotel, restaurant, cafe and associated uses (the Premises). The hotel contains 91 rooms.
2. CVA Apartments Pty Ltd (the third respondent) is the registered owner of the premises. Marsden Hotel Burwood Pty Ltd (the fourth respondent) is the lessee of the building and the operator of the hotel, restaurant and cafe.
3. The first respondent is a building certifier and a director of Mondan Management Ply Ltd trading as Vic Lilli and Partners (the second respondent). On 30 May 2019 Mr Lilli was engaged by Glenda Lam, an employee of Conquest Property Group, to act as the sole PCA in respect of the Premises.
4. On or about 28 November 2019 the Building Professional's Board cancelled Mr Lilli's accreditation as a certifier. Mr Lilli has appealed against that decision and on 19 December 2019 NCAT stayed that determination, subject to a number of conditions. One of the conditions reads as follows:
Mr Lilli is not authorised to determine and/or issue any complying development certificates, construction certificates, compliance certificates and/or occupation certificates, nor any modified certificates of any kind. This condition includes and applies to any undetermined applications and any determined applications where the certificate has not been issued.
5. On or about Sunday 12 January 2020 Burwood Council was contacted by Senior Constable Eva Christophie of Burwood Police having inspected the Premises.
6. On Monday 13 January 2020 Council officers McClure and Ellis inspected the Premises in company with the police and observed that the Premises were occupied, and that the cafe and restaurant were in operation.
7. On 14 January 2020 Council gave emergency Development Control Orders ("DCOs") to each of the third and fourth respondents, ordering that they cease the use of the use of [sic] the premises until a valid occupation certificate was issued.
8. On 15 January 2020 Burwood Council received an email from Jeremy Azzam, Property Division Manager of the third respondent. Attached to the email was a letter and a document purporting to be interim occupation certificate J190087 issued to allow occupation of the premises excluding levels 2 and 10. The IOC purported to be signed and issued by Valerio Lilli. The IOC was dated 23 December 2019.
9. On 15 January 2015 Mr Trinh emailed Mr Lilli seeking confirmation from him as to whether an IOC had been issued and requesting a copy of the IOC. On 16 January 2020 Mr Trinh sent an email to Mr Lilli advising that Council had received a copy of the IOC and asking Mr Lilli to confirm whether the IOC had been issued and repeated the request for a copy of the IOC.
10. On 17 January 2020 Mr Trinh received an email purporting to be from Mr Lilli. There was a copy of the IOC attached to the response.
11. On 22 January 2020 Mr Trinh received a further email from Mr Lilli with the heading "DA 2019.017 - 56-60 Burwood Road, Burwood". The email advised that:
I am unable to supply a copy of the interim occupation certificate as requested as I have not issued any occupation certificates for the subject development.
12. Mr Lilli requested a copy of the IOC that Council had received so that he could review it. On 23 January 2020 Mr Trinh responded to Mr Lilli's email of 22 January 2020 by attaching his email of 17 January 2020, attaching the IOC that it had received and advising that Council was confused as the two emails appeared to contradict each other.
13. On 23 January 2020 Lilli responded by way of a further email. The email said as follows:
It appears that the interim occupation certificate has been fraudulently prepared and issued to council. The documents which support the certificate are documents which were referenced on a recently completed project and attached to assist in making the certificate appear to be a legitimately issued certificate.
I again reiterate my assertions that this office has not issued any occupation certificate, either interim or final for the subject development.
I would be more than willing to assist council in any legal proceedings should the necessity arise.
14. Mr Lilli did not write or send the email dated 17 January 2020 to Mr Trinh. He did not authorise any of his staff to write or send the email.
15. Mr Lilli did not issue IOC J190087. He did not authorise any of his staff to issue the IOC. No one in his office has the authority to sign a Part 6 certificate using Mr Lilli's name or referring to his practising certificate number. Mr Lilli has not issued an occupation certificate for the Premises.
16. The parties agree that it is appropriate for the Court to make a declaration in the following amended terms:
That Interim Occupation Certificate J190087 dated 23 December 2019 for occupation of 56-60 Burwood Road Burwood NSW 2134 excluding Levels 2 and 10 is void and of no effect.
In terms of what is most material to matters before me today I note that pars 1, 2 and 3 of the SOAF explain the role of the various parties before me, the First and Second Respondents being the certifier and his company and the Third and Fourth Respondents being the owners and lessees of the subject premises in Burwood Road. For current purposes I will pass over to par 8 where the SOAF identifies the train of events whereby a purported IOC was provided to the Council, which the SOAF makes clear was not in fact issued by the First or Second Respondent.
That is confirmed ultimately in pars 14 and 15 of the SOAF which state that, "Mr Lilli did not write or send the email dated 17 January 2020 to Mr Trinh", that is the email attaching a purported IOC. "He did not authorise any of his staff to write or send the mail". In par 15 Mr Lilli states that he did not issue IOC J190087, he did not authorise any of his staff to issue the IOC, no one in his office has the authority to sign a Pt 6 certificate using Mr Lilli's name or his practising certificate number. Mr Lilli has not issued an occupation certificate for the premises. I note the advice of his counsel today that material in pars 14 and 15 is based on a very detailed affidavit prepared by Mr Lilli supported further by a report of an information technology expert who identifies how it was that a fraudulent document was able to be sent to the Council from Mr Lilli's email address without his knowledge.
In terms of the matters to consider as to whether it is appropriate to make the declaration sought, both as to substance and as to utility, it is clearly the case, as the Council submitted, that in fact there was no power to issue the purported IOC. Only a principal certifier has the power to issue such a document by virtue of s 6.5(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Mr Lilli as the principal certifier for the project simply did not issue the purported IOC.
I agree that the purported IOC is an invalid document. I have been referred to Chambers v Maclean Shire Council (2003) 57 NSWLR 152; [2003] NSWCA 100 where, in an analogous situation, the Court of Appeal held that it was not open to a council to issue a particular development when the relevant minister was the consent authority, and the same reasoning would apply here.
The further concerning aspect of this matter is the fraudulent nature of the purported IOC. The Council's submissions at pars 30-35 helpfully set out the reasons why the fraudulent exercise is another basis on which I should consider making the declaration sought. These paragraphs identify that the consequence of a fraud "on" the decision-maker is that the decision made by them is properly regarded in law as no decision at all: SZFDE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) 232 CLR 189; [2007] HCA 35 at [52]. The fraudulent forging and issuing of the purported IOC stultified the operation of the legislative scheme by which an IOC may be issued. In the alternative, a decision made in the purported exercise of statutory powers may be quashed by certiorari where the decision has been induced or affected by fraud: SZFDE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship at [53]; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v SZFDE (2006) 154 FCR 365; [2006] FCAFC 142 at [131]. As the statutory process leading to the issue of the IOC has been vitiated by fraud the IOC should be declared a nullity and void.
In relation to utility I note that in par 4 of the SOAF, while it does not play a direct role in the decision I am making, disciplinary proceedings in relation to Mr Lilli in his other professional activities are referred to. I accept the submissions of his counsel that there is great utility from Mr Lilli's and his company's point of view in having the purported IOC declared invalid so that his position in relation to this document in those other matters is clear.
For the reasons identified by the Council I agree that I should exercise my discretion to make the declaration sought. Only the principal certifier had the power to issue the document and it is established that he did not issue it. The fraudulent issue is particularly serious. I also adopt the reasoning of Robson J in Inner West Council v Balmain Rentals Pty Ltd [2019] NSWLEC 24 at [46] that:
…the making of a declaration at least marks the disapproval of the Court of conduct that Parliament has proscribed. It also serves to discourage others from acting in a similar way and therefore can be seen to be a deterrent and have an educative element.
I am making the short minutes of order provided by the parties. I note the parties have agreed costs and that is reflected in these short minutes of order.
[3]
Declarations and orders
The Court makes the following declarations and orders:
1. The Court declares that purported Interim Occupation Certificate J190087 dated 23 December 2019 for occupation of 56-60 Burwood Road Burwood NSW 2134 excluding levels 2 and 10 is void and of no effect.
2. The Court orders that the Third and Fourth Respondents pay the Applicant's costs of these proceedings as agreed or assessed.
3. The Court orders that the Third and Fourth Respondents pay the First and Second Respondents' costs of these proceedings in the agreed sum of $16,196.50 within 28 days.
4. The Court orders that the proceedings otherwise be dismissed.
[4]
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 12 March 2020