1. Under s 127 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) ('VCAT Act'), the application for review is amended to include review of the Victorian Building Authority's decision to take disciplinary action against Mr Little dated 3 March 2025.
2. Under s 50 of the VCAT Act, the application for a stay in this proceeding is dismissed.
3. By 4pm on 15 April 2025, each party must advise the Tribunal:
   • the earliest date they will be ready for a final hearing and any dates of non-availability from that date onwards;
   • how long they will require to present submissions and evidence at the final hearing;
   • which witnesses they propose to call to give evidence (both expert and lay) and an outline of their relevance to the issues in dispute; and
   • any additional procedural orders they seek in the proceeding to bring the matter to final hearing.
4. A copy of the responses must be sent to the other party on the same day.
5. All contact with VCAT must include the VCAT case number and be copied to all other parties (unless otherwise ordered).
6. The parties must respond promptly to all registry requests for information (including about their access to technology) and to cooperate with VCAT's requirements for the conduct of the hearing.

D J Briggs of counsel, instructed by Minter Ellison.

1. Mr Little was registered as a building practitioner in Victoria.[1] His business trades as ADL Home Building and Construction.
2. On 20 December 2024, the Victorian Building Authority ('VBA'), the statutory regulator for building practitioners, gave notice to Mr Little that his registration was suspended immediately, pending the outcome of a 'show cause' process.
3. The immediate suspension was stated to take effect from 30 December 2024 and to remain in place until 30 November 2027, unless earlier revoked by the VBA in writing, or otherwise subject to an order of the Tribunal.
4. The suspension was effected under section 180A(2A) of the Building Act 1993 (Vic) ('Building Act') which provides:

(2A) The Authority must, by written notice given to a registered building practitioner, immediately suspend the registration of the registered building practitioner if the Authority considers it is in the interests of the public to do so pending the show cause process. > > [Tribunal emphasis]

5. Section 180A(2B) of the Act outlines potentially relevant matters for the authority to consider in the following terms:

(2B) For the purpose of subsection (2A), matters that the Authority may have regard to in deciding whether it is in the interests of the public to immediately suspend the registration of a registered building practitioner include the following -

(a) whether the registered building practitioner is performing, has performed or has allowed others under the practitioner's control to perform building work that poses a serious risk to neighbouring properties;

(b) whether the registered building practitioner is performing, has performed or has allowed others under the practitioner's control to perform building work that poses a risk to the health and safety of persons;

(c) whether the registered building practitioner has been the subject of multiple adverse disciplinary actions by the Authority.

1. In the present case, it appears 2(B)(b) is of key relevance from this non-exhaustive list of considerations.
2. On 21 December 2024, the VBA served Mr Little with a 'show cause' notice under section 182(1) of the Building Act.
3. In summary, the VBA's reasons for decision for immediate suspension in the interests of the public are expressed to pertain to:
   • a purpose of the registration scheme in Part 11 of the Building Act is to provide assurance to the public that only capable and competent people who can act in line with the objectives of that Act will hold and retain registration as a building practitioner; and
   • the allegations in the 'show cause notice' detail conduct resulting in 'serious harm to consumers', conduct posing risks to public safety, a pattern of alleged incompetence and a lack of fitness to hold registration.
4. The notice of immediate suspension explained:

In the context of any or all of these matters, the Authority has no confidence that Mr Little would not continue to engage in unacceptable conduct which would be detrimental to consumers and/or unsafe to members of the public and, therefore, has concluded that allowing him to continue to practise as a builder until the conclusion of the show cause process would present an unacceptable risk to the public.

The Authority is not aware of any compelling rebutting factors.

Therefore, having regard to the protection of the public as the paramount consideration and having regard to the risk which Mr Little's continued registration would pose to the public based on the matters identified herein, it is considered by the Authority to be in the interests of the public to immediately suspend the registrations held by Mr Little pending the outcome of the show cause process.

1. Unlike for some other review proceedings within this jurisdiction, the legislation does not provide an automatic stay of the outcome of the decision until a final determination is made.
2. Mr Little sought review of the immediate suspension of his registration under section 186 of the Building Act. He also sought a stay of the suspension.
3. The Tribunal (constituted by DP Proctor) refused to grant an interim stay in this proceeding on 24 December 2024. Oral reasons were given.
4. I heard the current stay application on 25 February 2025.
5. The VBA submitted the Tribunal should refuse to grant a stay of its decision to immediately suspend pending finalisation of the show cause process.
6. Neither party called oral evidence in the proceeding, although the VBA relied on two affidavits affirmed by David Brockman, Executive Director, Compliance and Enforcement at the VBA, dated 31 January 2025 and 21 February 2025, respectively.
7. These affidavits included relevant documentation relating to notices issued to Mr Little, investigations by the VBA and Worksafe and a transcript of VCAT's reasons for decision in Peter Rontogiannis v VBA[2].
8. At the end of the stay hearing, I reserved my decision to enable the VBA to finalise its pending decision in respect of the 'show cause' notice and for parties to make further submissions as to the potential impact of that decision on the current application for a stay.
9. I also granted leave to Mr Little to amend his current application for review, noting it prematurely sought to review the 'show cause' notice instead of reviewing disciplinary action following this process. More specifically, the order provided an opportunity to seek review of the disciplinary action proposed by the VBA in its decision of 3 March 2025 under the same legislative provision as the existing review proceeding.
10. I am conscious that there are two separate but somewhat related decisions under review within the current proceeding, as amended.
11. The first pertains to the immediate suspension and the latter relates to disciplinary action which includes suspension as part of a range of penalties.
12. I refer to the decisions as 'related' because it appears that there is substantial overlap between the allegations documented in the disciplinary decision following the show cause notice and the view formed by the VBA that immediate suspension was required in the public interest. This was inherent in the nature of the immediate suspension being subject to the conclusion of the 'show cause' process as provided in section 180A(2A).
13. These reasons relate to the request for a stay of immediate suspension of Mr Little's registration. I have taken into account all submissions made orally and in writing on behalf of the parties, the content of affidavits filed for the VBA and all relevant matters under applicable legislation.
14. While I am not obligated to provide written reasons for interlocutory applications, they are likely to assist the parties and the Tribunal in understanding the relevant issues and to assist their preparation for a final hearing.

1. I accept submissions for the VBA to the effect that there is no automatic stay of a decision for immediate suspension under relevant legislative provisions.
2. I find this situation has not changed in favour of Mr Little by virtue of the application for review being amended under section 127 of the VCAT Act to include a review of proposed disciplinary action.
3. Under the relevant provisions of the Building Act, however interpreted as explained in further written submissions for the VBA, an application for review will stay the operation of the show cause decision but not the decision to immediately suspend.
4. Section 50(3) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) ('VCAT Act') gives the Tribunal power to stay a decision which is the subject of a review application.[3]
5. The power to grant a stay is discretionary, and will depend on the particular facts and circumstances of each case.
6. There are well established case law principles which guide the Tribunal's exercise of discretion in stay applications:[4]
   • whether refusing the stay will render the application for review nugatory;
   • whether there is a serious question to be tried in the review proceeding;
   • whether the granting of the stay is in the community or public interest, which involves weighing the interests of the public against the private rights of the applicant;
   • the period of time that will elapse before the final hearing of the application for review; and
   • whether any stay should be granted subject to conditions.

1. Mr Little submitted that the VBA was required to comply with obligations to provide him with procedural fairness/natural justice when making its decision to suspend immediately, which affected his rights and interests.
2. He referred to extensive case authority to this effect, and submitted that the legislative regime did not unambiguously exclude this underlying obligation.
3. Mr Little emphasised throughout the hearing and in written submissions that the VBA had not accorded him natural justice since it issued him with the notice of immediate suspension without providing an opportunity to respond to allegations against him. He queried:[5]

How can a decision maker reasonable believe that grounds for immediate suspension exists if the processes followed do not allow them to hear all sides of the story?

How can the administrative decision maker thoroughly consider the evidence before them if only half the evidence is presented.

1. He alleged that the VBA had not adhered to its own procedures, as recorded in its 'Show cause process practitioner guide'. He also took issue with the fact that VBA had not advised him before this time of its investigation into his conduct that had commenced in or around mid November 2024.[6]
2. I understand that Mr Little commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court to address these perceived deficiencies and to effectively injunct the VBA from taking disciplinary action against him in certain circumstances.
3. The VBA indicated it had sought summary dismissal of that proceeding.
4. I made a request at the conclusion of the stay hearing for parties to advise the Tribunal if any relevant decisions had been made by the Court, but I have not as yet been provided with any relevant update.

1. In response to Mr Little's concerns on the above, I explained in the stay hearing that until such time as the VBA's decision/s may be declared to be invalid or otherwise set aside, there is still a reviewable decision/s before the Tribunal by virtue of section 4 of the VCAT Act.
2. That section relevantly provides:

When does a person make a decision? > > (1) For the purposes of this Act or an enabling enactment, a person makes a decision if the person - > > ... > > (b) gives, suspends, revokes or refuses to give a certificate, direction, approval, consent or permission; > > (c) issues, suspends, revokes or refuses to issue a licence, authority or other instrument; ... > > (2) For the purposes of this Act or an enabling enactment - > > (a) a decision is made under an enactment if it is made in the exercise or purported exercise of a function conferred or imposed by or under that enactment; > > (b) a decision that purports to be made under an enactment is deemed to be a decision made under that enactment even if the decision was beyond the power of the decision-maker; ...

3. For present purposes, it does not appear that the regulatory regime expressly required the VBA to give advance notice or to hear from Mr Little before his immediate suspension.
4. Instead, its ability to exercise this power is founded on the VBA forming a belief that immediate suspension is justified in the public interest.
5. The VBA submitted that it had formed this belief suitably on the facts before it at the time.
6. This is in contrast with the 'show cause' process under the Building Act, which expressly provides for an opportunity for an affected person to respond and for the VBA to reassess, reconsider and then confirm or vary a foreshadowed decision. This opportunity was provided to Mr Little and taken up.
7. Even if the VBA improperly denied Mr Little natural justice in determining to suspend his registration immediately, this is not of itself a reason why the Tribunal would need to set aside or vary its decision/s at this point in time. Moreover, it does not support a stay in the current proceeding when relevant matters are considered.
8. The Tribunal will ultimately conduct an independent review of the facts, providing Mr Little an appropriate opportunity to make submissions and provide evidence before making any final decision.
9. Mr Little was also concerned that the Tribunal had not been provided with the 'full brief of evidence' compiled by the VBA to date (as referred to in Mr Brockman's affidavit). However, he conceded that he had been provided with this information via a flash drive and had the chance to consider this information.
10. As I explained at the hearing, the role of the Tribunal in a stay proceeding is a focused one. It does not call for the Tribunal to assess all evidence that would otherwise be provided for a final hearing and to form any concluded views.
11. It is open to the parties to provide amended or new evidence for the hearing of the review proceeding, such that the evidence is not fixed at this point in time.
12. I made a ruling at the hearing that the VBA had complied with Tribunal orders to date for the provision of information for the stay hearing.
13. In these circumstances, I consider I have sufficient information to fairly determine the stay application, having been provided with the section 49 statement of reasons by the VBA and submissions and documentation provided by both parties in line with Tribunal orders in the proceeding, consistent with Tribunal practice.

Irregularities or inaccuracies in the notices to Mr Little

1. Mr Little highlighted a number of inaccuracies in the documentation the VBA had served on him, principally relating to certain dates.
2. In many instances, it was clear to me that the inaccuracies constituted clerical mistakes. Mr Little conceded that, as at the date of the hearing, he was now aware of the correct dates.
3. In these circumstances, I consider that Mr Little is not hampered by this in making his stay application, and there is sufficient information before me to assess it.

1. The 'show cause' notice documents 86 allegations. On my assessment, the key items can generally be categorised as:
   • entering a non-compliant building contract, neglecting the obligation to obtain insurance as required and claiming payments before they were due;
   • failing to ensure a building permit was in place when temporally required;
   • submitting for approval a design that failed to comply with the Building Act and Building Regulations 2018 (Vic) in connection with fire safety;
   • building past a mandatory notification stage contrary to the legislation and regulations;
   • contraventions of duties to employees under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic) in connection with electrical safety in particular; and
   • unprofessional conduct and a pattern of incompetence, indicating a lack of fitness to hold registration.
2. Mr Little sought to justify why he had not taken action considered necessary by the VBA in many instances in response to allegations in the 'show cause' notice by the VBA, such as providing a design to a relevant building surveyor without a sprinkler system in the building at Ajay Way, Kurunjang designed for NDIS housing.
3. This included seeking the advice of the legal department of the Housing Institute of Australia and a 'registered and experienced' building surveyor, including on matters of whether the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic) and the requirement for domestic building insurance applied to that project.
4. Mr Little explained he had also consulted the Australian Building Codes Board (technical advisory line) as to whether a sprinkler system was required for this project, before deferring to the client's election and subsequently obtaining a fire engineering report, peer review and approval by a relevant building surveyor.
5. In another instance where it was alleged that he did not secure an inspection for a mandatory stage of construction, he suggested this was because he had arranged for an engineer to inspect the premises instead, and this alternative course had been accepted by the relevant building surveyor.
6. As to deficiencies or risks on the Ambrose Street, Emerald site, Mr Little explained that he had made numerous attempts but was unable to engage an appropriate electrician who would commit to rectifying deficient work to ensure compliance.
7. Likewise, he advised he had contacted Energy Safe Victoria to discuss potential investigations into the electrician who had provided incomplete and unsafe work and opportunities for rectification on that particular project.
8. At the same time, Mr Little did not consider it 'realistic' to stop all works on that site for a number of months pending resolution of the electrical issues.
9. In respect of alleged unfit practitioner conduct, he pointed to purported omissions or failures by the client/s to fulfil obligations under the contract.
10. In general, Mr Little sought to explain his inability to secure various rectification works because of repudiation and termination of various contracts, which resulted in him ceasing to have access to various building sites. In his view, this had limited his opportunity to respond properly to various allegations to date.
11. As to claims of not ensuring a safe work environment, Mr Little sought to explain that a client and their representative had entered a site in contravention of occupational health and safety requirements, which led to an inquiry by WorkSafe.
12. In summary, in response to numerous allegations, Mr Little submitted at the hearing that 'it was absolutely clear that this wasn't me going rogue or completely ignoring my obligations'.
13. He accepted that he was 'legally responsible' for certain actions as 'principal contractor'. However, he sought to distinguish the reasoning of the Tribunal in Basiri v Victorian Building Authority[7] ('Basiri') in respect of the impact on the public interest, explaining that he is not a building surveyor responsible for the checks and balances on building permits and work by practitioners.

1. Mr Little explained that the failures of due process and the resultant decisions of the VBA have caused 'significant negative impacts' to his mental health and that of his immediate family.
2. He explained that the main reason for these 'negative impacts' was abuse from third parties, after obtaining what he regarded as 'incomplete' or 'untested' information from the VBA.
3. At the time of the suspension, Mr Little had 5 'active projects'. He provided the following detail in submissions:[8]

Further invoices issued on other projects that are due and payable under the applicable contact remain unpaid and my recovery abilities have been restricted by the suspension.

The suspension of projects, termination of contracts and lost revenue is likely to result in commercial losses of more than $350,000 outside of any financial penalties that the VBA may seek to impose.

I have not sought to actively quantify the commercial cost at this stage, including lost future earnings, for the benefit of my own mental health.

The reputational damage that has been cause through the promotion of untested allegations has so far prevented me from being able to obtaining short term employment opportunities to assist with my ongoing expenses.

I am not yet aware about additional costs or damages that may have occurred on projects that have works suspended.

1. At the hearing, Mr Little elaborated in response to my questions that 'he does not know how he will provide for his family or keep a roof over his head' but 'that would be a tomorrow problem'.

1. In summary, the VBA submitted that the allegations against Mr Little pertaining to the decision to suspend immediately:
   • demonstrate his inability to protect public, client and contractor health and safety;
   • show a pattern of either incompetence or a lack of fitness to be a registered building practitioner; and
   • highlight his deficient attitude towards compliance with statutory obligations.
2. The VBA submitted that the Tribunal should have particular regard to the statutory objectives of the Act in this proceeding, which at s4(1)(a) include, to 'protect the health and safety of people who use buildings...'.
3. It referred to the 'statutory mandate' created by section 180A(2A) which requires the VBA to immediately suspend a builder's registration where it believes it is in the interests of the public to do so. This was confirmed by Judge Marks in Basiri.[9]
4. In applying the legislative provisions, it pointed to the importance of the role of the VBA, as confirmed by Hollingworth J in Rodwell v Building Practitioners Board:[10]

The board has been given broad powers to inquire into the conduct of registered building practitioners, and to make certain findings and exercise certain powers against them. Having regard to the statutory scheme, I am satisfied that the main purpose of such an inquiry is to ensure that registered builders adhere to the high standards expected of them, primarily for the protection of the public and the reputation of the building industry itself.

1. It pointed to recent confirmation by the Tribunal that, when exercising disciplinary powers, the objective of any determination is 'primarily the protection of the public and the maintenance of professional standards in the eyes of the public'.[11]
2. The VBA responded it was irrelevant that Mr Little was not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations and evidence against him before issuing the notice of immediate suspension, especially in the context of the 'Parliamentary mandate' if it considered immediate suspension to be in the interests of the public.
3. It also confirmed that the Tribunal maintains the same obligation on review.
4. As to whether a stay would render the application for review nugatory, the VBA refuted this view. It explained:[12]

First, the application for review will not be affected if the stay is not granted. If the review of the immediate suspension is successful, then the immediate suspension will be lifted and the applicant will be registered, subject to the outcome of the show cause process. If the review of the immediate suspension is unsuccessful, the immediate suspension will stay in force, at least until the show cause process has concluded.

1. The VBA identified that the question currently before the Tribunal is whether the suspension was in the interests of the public. It submitted that there is no serious question about this element of its decision since:

There is ample evidence to support the VBA's belief that it is in the interests of the public that Mr Little's registrations be suspended pending the show cause process. There is no compelling reason to come to a different view on this application.

The Show Cause Notice is detailed. The VBA's concerns (outlined above) reveal a disregard by the Applicant for his obligations under the very legislation designed to ensure buildings constructed in Victoria are safe and compliant and a disregard for the rights and interests of consumers.

Based on those matters, there can be little doubt that immediately suspending the Applicant's registrations was in the interests of the public.[13]

1. In its further submissions (following its decision to impose disciplinary action), the VBA adopted the view that:

...the decision to impose a three-year suspension, cancellation and disqualification also weighs against a finding that there is a serious question to be tried as to whether immediate suspension was justified. Indeed, the immediate suspension decision is vindicated by that decision.

1. The VBA highlighted that particular care may need to be exercised before a stay is granted because the decision in question involves a disciplinary penalty imposed under a regulatory regime.
2. It referenced findings of the Tribunal in Basiri that immediate suspension is a 'means to protect the public pending the full consideration of a very serious matter: whether the registration should be suspended'.[14]
3. The VBA considered that:

...the material demonstrates a pattern of behaviour by Mr Little in contravention of the Building Act and the Building Regulations and a disregard for his responsibilities as a builder and for the health and safety of others.[15]

1. It submitted that the position is now clearer in respect of the public interest since its investigation in the show cause process has concluded and most of the allegations were maintained by the authority as regulator, particularly those of a serious nature.
2. The VBA further submitted that any claim of potential detriment to Mr Little had not been substantiated by probative evidence.
3. It pointed to an absence of evidence in the proceeding about his current assets and liabilities, financial statistics, other sources of income and the like.
4. Irrespective, the VBA acknowledged that some financial impact of its decision would be 'inevitable', but any detriment would be outweighed by the need to protect the public interest.

Tribunal consideration of the stay application

Whether failure to grant a stay would render the application for review nugatory

1. A refusal to grant a stay will generally render an application nugatory where irreparable damage will be done by the operation of the decision under review before the Tribunal determines the review proceeding and that damage could not be undone if the application succeeds.[16]
2. This is a significant consideration in all stay applications, because it goes to issues of utility and timing which, in turn, affect fairness.
3. In summary, Mr Little sought review of the decision of the VBA to suspend his registration until the show cause process is determined. The VBA subsequently determined to take disciplinary action against Mr Little, including suspension of his registration, cancellation of registration with a three year disqualification and other actions, including financial penalties.
4. Granting a stay would temporarily reinstate Mr Little's registration and allow him to practice as a building practitioner until the review proceeding is determined finally.
5. On the facts of this case, I find that refusing a stay would not render the application for review nugatory in any way, to the extent that the Tribunal would still need to consider whether ongoing suspension and other disciplinary action is justified on the applicable facts and law.
6. This criterion does not support a stay order.

Is there is a serious question to be tried in this application for review?

1. I am cautious not to pre-empt the outcome of the final proceeding given the nature of the stay application and the confines of a stay hearing, as explained above.
2. Decision makers have confirmed it is inappropriate to consider seriously contested matters with a view to trying to predict the outcome without the benefit of hearing evidence.[17]
3. At the hearing and through written submissions, Mr Little indicated he intends to produce responsive evidence to explain why he acted reasonably and appropriately in various dealings on building projects, such that the immediate suspension and other penalties are not warranted.
4. I depart from the submissions of the VBA and consider there is a serious question to be tried in this proceeding.
5. There is a legitimate question as to whether Mr Little's suspension and associated disqualification is justified on the facts of this proceeding.
6. The VBA has made numerous, detailed allegations against Mr Little as the basis for its action.
7. I accept that the VBA has subsequently reviewed the circumstances in its 'show cause' notice with the benefit of more information from Mr Little and its own sources.
8. While the VBA's decision and reasons represent the position of the regulator, this has not been tested before the Tribunal with the benefit of all relevant evidence.
9. It appears that in a number of instances, the VBA is concerned with a perceived pattern of conduct that may indicate Mr Little is unfit to hold registration as a builder.
10. Also, a number of the allegations pertain to particular applications of legislative provisions or recognised standards, such as those in respect of fire safety features and the need to take out particular insurances. The authority's application of these provisions to the facts is yet to be tested.
11. Of itself, this criterion leans in favour of a stay order, although it is to be balanced in the context of a number of other relevant factors.

1. Care should be exercised before a stay is granted where the decision under review is a decision under a professional regulatory regime. The Tribunal and courts have reiterated there is a need to protect the public from unsafe or unfit practitioners, as well as a clear public interest in maintaining appropriate standards in regulated professions.
2. It is clear to me that, at the core of the allegations against Mr Little and the reasons for its immediate suspension, the VBA is concerned about Mr Little's competency and attitude towards compliance with the relevant building regime, particularly in the areas of public safety.
3. The allegations made by the VBA against Mr Little are serious. Their subject matter includes serious deficiencies in ensuring compliance with fire safety for potentially vulnerable future occupiers, and electrical safety measures for contractors and clients.
4. At their highest, if demonstrated, they have the capacity to reveal that Mr Little has not suitably met his responsibilities as a registered builder, with real potential for impacts on the safety of contractors, clients and members of the public. The lack of a commitment to ensuring safe work systems is also a particular concern identified by the VBA (and Worksafe in its related enquiry).
5. These claimed deficient behaviours also go to the crux of public confidence in practitioners.
6. Mr Little did not satisfy me that there are suitable measures to realistically prevent such risks from re-occurring if his registration was temporarily reinstated, such that there would be suitable protection of the public.
7. Likewise, I was not provided with any grounds for reassurance that Mr Little would have any realistic incentive not to engage in potential unsafe or unprofessional behaviour for the duration of the proceeding if his registration was reinstated in the interim (other than generally seeking to demonstrate he is a fit and proper person to continue to be registered as a building practitioner).
8. From his oral submissions, it appears Mr Little remains convinced that his actions to date were generally acceptable, albeit may have been improved with the benefit of hindsight.
9. I also observed an apparent discrepancy between his apparent acceptance of his role as principal contractor, with the allegations by the VBA that he did not provide sufficient, timely directives in this role to meet the underlying obligations of a registered building practitioner.
10. As can be seen from the VBA's reasons for disciplinary action, it submits that the fact that the relevant building surveyor approved certain plans or specifications does not automatically absolve a registered building practitioner from taking alternative action.
11. This is an important issue to be explored at the final hearing with the benefit of full evidence and submissions.
12. More pertinently for the purpose of this stay application, the VBA's allegations seek to demonstrate that Mr Little deferred to the opinion of others and/or failed to take an appropriate level of responsibility incumbent upon a registered building practitioner.
13. In these circumstances, granting a stay would also have the potential to impact public confidence in the building profession, which I find would be diminished if Mr Little was permitted to practice in the interim.
14. This criterion leans heavily against a stay order.

The time until VCAT will decide the application for review

1. Given a lack of Member resources, it is anticipated that a full merits review hearing would be listed towards the end of the year (from September onwards); assuming parties provide all submissions, evidence and documents to be relied on in a timely way.
2. Therefore, the Tribunal's final determination would be expected in the latter part of the year.
3. This criterion generally supports a stay order, all things considered.

1. Generally, VCAT has a predilection in favour of not 'putting people out of business' until they have had the opportunity to prosecute their review applications.[18]
2. I asked Mr Little what prejudice he may suffer if a stay was refused and his suspension continued to take effect until final order of the Tribunal.
3. He explained that he could not continue to work as a registered builder until the matter was determined in his favour. He accepted that he may need to find 'other work'.
4. Mr Little did not provide any evidence to suggest that he would be in a dire or unsustainable position in the interim.
5. His written submissions explained that he is seeking to limit the effects of this proceeding on his mental health, and this was offered as a key reason why he has not sought to quantify the financial impact of his suspension at this stage.
6. Nonetheless, I accept that a full suspension of registration as a building practitioner would have a significant impact on Mr Little's earning capacity.
7. This criterion supports a stay order.

Whether any stay should be granted subject to conditions

1. I provided an opportunity for parties to address me on this matter at the hearing.
2. Mr Little made a number of impromptu suggestions, such as not taking on any new contracts or potentially only working on projects where his family were clients.
3. At the same time, he conceded this would be subject to the amount of time it would take for the review proceeding to be determined finally, and the work opportunities that became available.
4. I am not persuaded that any party has presented any viable or enforceable conditions that could be imposed on a stay to ensure that contractors, clients and members of the public would be suitably protected from the risk of Mr Little not performing building work safely and diligently in the interim period.
5. This criterion does not support a stay order.

1. The criteria above need to be balanced in light of the facts of this particular case. Not all criteria are equally weighted.
2. Significantly, the balancing exercise needs to be undertaken in the context of the objectives of the Building Act; the relevant legislative regime which seek to regulate building work and building standards, regulate building practitioners and protecting the health and safety of people who use buildings.
3. I distinguish this proceeding from Diamond Builders Pty Ltd v Victorian Building Authority[19] as referred to by the parties, where the Tribunal granted a stay of immediate suspension of a registered building surveyor (as opposed to a registered builder).
4. In that case, the Tribunal granted a limited stay to enable work to be completed on a singular site. It found there was a serious question to be tried, and was not satisfied that a conditional stay would constitute a material risk to the public or be contrary to the public interest. There was also a risk of impacts to third parties, such as vandalism, if the construction works were not completed.
5. I accept that there is a serious issue to be tried in this proceeding namely, whether Mr Little's ongoing suspension and disqualification is justified, and, if so, for what time period.
6. This is supplemented by further questions about whether all aspects of the associated disciplinary action are justified on their facts, and what remedies should be applied.
7. While I accept that Mr Little will suffer financial loss and a potential diminution in wellbeing in association with the suspension of his registration, these are personal impacts that are not unforeseen in a proceeding of this nature.
8. In my opinion, they are also not sufficient to outweigh potential risks to the public and detriment to the public interest.
9. Further, I am not persuaded that there are appropriate measures that could accompany any stay on the suspension that would suitably ensure protection of the public and third parties in dealings with Mr Little on projects and building sites if his registration was reinstated in the interim.
10. Notably, the refusal to grant a stay at this point in time would not render the review proceeding nugatory. Mr Little would remain entitled to have all aspects of the VBA's decisions reviewed in full and he would have the opportunity to seek to justify to the Tribunal why his registration should be reinstated.
11. In these circumstances, there is minimal potential for 'irreparable damage' or the like.

1. For these reasons, a stay pending final determination of the proceeding is refused.

[1] In the class of Domestic Builder - Unlimited (DB-U 43766) from 12 August 2015 and in the class of Commercial Builder - Limited from 19 November 2020 (CB-L 68042, limited to low rise building work).

[4] Bell v Liquor Licensing Victoria [2000] VCAT 214 at [12]-[16] (Kellam J), and Ali v Taxi Services Commission [2014] VCAT 1437 at [17] .

[6] I also note that Mr Little made a request for access to documentation under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic) on 27 December 2024, but this was refused by the VBA on 12 February 2025.

[7] (Review and Regulation) [2019] VCAT 1376.

[9] (Review and Regulation) [2019] VCAT 1376 at [25].

[10] (2009) 21 VR 68.

[11] Rontogiannis v Victorian Building Authority (Review and Regulation) [2021] VCAT 1404 at [75] citing Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Mingos [2016] VCAT 918 at [24]- [26] and Quinn at [30]-[31].

[16] Arulanantham v Medical Board of Australia [2012] VCAT 124 at [17].

1. [17] Aavelaid v Dental Practice Board of Victoria [2002] VCAT 1376. This is another reason why I consider the lack of provision of the fulsome 'brief of information' underpinning the show cause notice to the Tribunal was not fatal, as well as the fact that parties are entitled to prepare and file additional or alternative evidence for the main hearing. I also noted that the 'brief of information' had been provided to Mr Little in the form of a flash drive, which was more significant to enable him to prepare his case supporting a stay.
2. [18] AZD v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2009] VCAT 977, that decision regularly followed in later decisions.

[19] (Review and Regulation) [2024] VCAT 1042.