Snart v Victorian Building Authority [2026] VCAT 650
A registered building surveyor sought review of disciplinary action imposed by the Victorian Building Authority in connection with combustible cladding used across three Victorian developments in Brunswick East, Glen Iris and Prahran.
The proceedings concerned building and occupancy permits issued over a number of years. The VBA alleged that the surveyor had:
- Issued building permits when he could not have been satisfied that the proposed works complied with the relevant building legislation and Building Code of Australia.
- Failed to perform his work competently and to a professional standard.
- Issued occupancy permits for buildings that were allegedly unsuitable for occupation.
The disciplinary process had significant professional consequences. The VBA’s original decision included a reprimand, a six-month suspension of the surveyor’s registration and financial penalties totalling $20,500. Following an internal review, the disciplinary action was reduced but still included a reprimand, penalties totalling $9,000 and periods of suspension totalling two months.
The surveyor then applied to VCAT for a review of the internal review decision.
For further context on the different avenues available in Victorian building matters, Warlows Legal also examines forum selection in Victorian construction disputes, including the roles of VCAT and other building dispute forums.
The Tribunal’s Decision
VCAT set aside the VBA’s internal review decision.
The Tribunal found that none of the remaining disciplinary grounds had been proven and ordered that no disciplinary action be imposed on the surveyor. The eight remaining grounds related to the Brunswick East, Glen Iris and Prahran developments and included allegations concerning combustible cladding, professional competence and the suitability of buildings for occupation.
A central issue was whether the surveyor had formed the state of satisfaction required before issuing the relevant building permits. VCAT considered whether he had turned his mind to the relevant matters, whether he had the information needed to make the assessment and whether his state of satisfaction was genuinely and honestly held.
In relation to the Brunswick East development, the Tribunal found that the surveyor had considered the relevant compliance matters, had relevant information before him and had honestly formed the required state of satisfaction when issuing the building permits.
The Tribunal also considered allegations concerning the Brunswick East occupancy permits. The VBA relied in part on later cladding audit findings, but VCAT found there was insufficient evidence to establish that the buildings were unsuitable for occupation at the time the permits were originally issued. The Tribunal noted that later safety assessments did not necessarily establish what the surveyor should have concluded years earlier.
The decision also examined the importance of documentation. VCAT acknowledged that missing or incomplete documentation can be relevant when considering whether a practitioner properly addressed a compliance issue. However, the Tribunal did not treat the absence of historical documents as automatic proof that an assessment had not been made. It noted that some of the permits had been issued many years earlier and accepted that not every professional assessment would necessarily have been recorded in detail.
VCAT also found the surveyor to be generally credible and honest. His expert witness provided evidence about building surveying practice and professional standards, and the Tribunal noted that the VBA did not call contradictory expert evidence on a number of matters.
Key Legal Takeaways
This decision highlights several important principles in professional disciplinary proceedings:
- The regulator carries the burden of proving each alleged ground.
- Serious disciplinary allegations require persuasive and reliable evidence.
- Later safety assessments do not automatically establish what a practitioner should have concluded years earlier.
- Inadequate documentation may be relevant, but it does not necessarily prove that a practitioner failed to consider an issue or form the required state of satisfaction.
- Allegations must be determined according to the specific particulars advanced by the regulator.
- Evidence about accepted professional practice may help establish whether a practitioner acted competently and could reasonably have formed the stated opinion.
The issues considered in the case sit within the broader field of building and construction law, including regulatory compliance, building disputes and matters involving building practitioners.
Outcome
All eight grounds before VCAT failed.
The Tribunal set aside the VBA’s internal review decision and substituted a new decision that no grounds for disciplinary action had been proven. As a result, no disciplinary action was imposed on the surveyor.
The decision provides an important example of how VCAT approaches evidence, professional judgment and the burden of proof in disciplinary proceedings involving registered building practitioners.
This case study provides general information only and does not constitute legal advice. The outcome of every matter depends on its particular facts and circumstances.
