INSIGHTS: VCAT delivers key judgment for building surveyors and their insurers

Snart v Victorian Building Authority [2026] VCAT 650 (18 August 2026)

Overview

On 18 August 2026, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) handed down a landmark decision for building surveyors and their insurers in Snart v Victorian Building Authority [2026] VCAT 650.

VCAT overturned disciplinary findings made by the Victorian Building Authority (VBA) against a building surveyor arising from the approval of combustible cladding at projects in Brunswick East, Glen Iris and Prahran. The Tribunal set aside the VBA’s internal review decision and found that none of the remaining disciplinary grounds had been established. As a result, no disciplinary action was imposed.

This decision provides important guidance on:

• what it means for a building surveyor to be ‘satisfied’ under section 24 of the Building Act
• the importance of assessing professional conduct by reference to the standards and practices applying at the time, rather than present day expectations
• the operation of the low-rise concession under the Building Code of Australia (BCA)
• the interpretation of the attachment provisions under the BCA and their application to combustible cladding products, and
• the role of contemporaneous documentation when professional conduct is assessed retrospectively.

Background

The case arose from a VBA investigation into building permits and occupancy permits issued by a building surveyor between 2008 and 2016.

In summary, the VBA alleged that the building surveyor:

• issued building permits approving the use of combustible cladding when he could not properly have been satisfied that the proposed work complied with the applicable building legislation and regulations
• failed to carry out his work competently and to a professional standard, and
• issued occupancy permits for buildings that were not suitable for occupation.

The Tribunal ultimately rejected each of the allegations.

The decision: key findings

Satisfaction of compliance

A central issue was whether the practitioner could genuinely have been satisfied that the proposed building work complied with the applicable legislation when he issued the permits.

VCAT found that the VBA was required to prove more than a possible error in the practitioner’s interpretation or assessment of compliance. The Tribunal accepted the practitioner’s evidence that he had considered the relevant issues and honestly believed the projects complied with the applicable requirements.

Importantly, it held that a mistaken view about a compliance pathway does not automatically establish that the required state of satisfaction (under section 24 of the Building Act) was absent.

Absence of contemporaneous records

The VBA relied heavily on the absence of records demonstrating how the practitioner had reached certain conclusions about compliance. However, the practitioner gave evidence that the company that employed him when the permits were issued no longer existed, and that not all of its documentation had been retained.

While the Tribunal accepted that contemporaneous documentation can be highly relevant, it noted that many of the permits had been issued between nine and 15 years earlier. Record-keeping practices during that period were not necessarily equivalent to current expectations. The absence of records was therefore insufficient, on its own, to establish the allegations.

VCAT also accepted expert evidence that formal documentation of certain assessments, particularly those relating to weatherproofing and alternative solutions, was often limited during the relevant period. The Tribunal considered that the practitioner’s conduct had to be assessed against the professional practices and regulatory environment existing when the permits were issued, rather than against standards that developed following the Lacrosse fire and subsequent cladding reforms.

Compliance with the BCA

The Tribunal closely examined the BCA provisions relied upon by the VBA, including those concerning the low-rise Class 2 buildings, the attachment of aluminium composite panel (ACP) products, weatherproofing and structural performance.

Although VCAT identified areas where alternative compliance approaches could have been adopted, it was ultimately not satisfied that the VBA had established the alleged non-compliance or that the practitioner could not honestly have formed the views he held at the time.

Why this decision matters

The decision has broader implications for cladding-related claims, in both the civil and disciplinary contexts. It also has broader ramifications for the defence of disciplinary prosecutions more generally. In particular, it indicates that:

• historical conduct must be assessed by reference to the regulatory framework and industry practice at the relevant time
• deficiencies in documentation do not necessarily establish incompetence or misconduct
• a regulator bears the burden of establishing that a surveyor could not have reached the required state of satisfaction
• expert evidence about historical industry practices may be critical when responding to disciplinary proceedings, and
• the presence of combustible cladding on a building is not, by itself, sufficient to support a disciplinary finding.

The decision reinforces that disciplinary findings must be supported by evidence demonstrating that the practitioner acted improperly or could not genuinely have been satisfied of compliance at the relevant time.

For building surveyors and their insurers, the case also underscores the value of sound record keeping. However, it confirms that contemporaneous records are not essential to establishing that a surveyor was ‘satisfied’ for the purposes of section 24 of the Building Act.

This decision may also be relevant to the Victorian Government’s subrogated recovery actions concerning combustible cladding, many of which involve the operation of the BCA’s low-rise concession and the attachment provisions.

VCAT’s findings are presently the subject of an appeal.

The legal team

The author acted for the practitioner in this matter, assisted by members of her team at her previous firm, expert surveyor Ari Akritidis of Akritidis Group Building Consultants and counsel, Ian Freckleton AO KC, Andrew Woods KC and Arjunan Thangarajah.

This article was written by Principal Lawyer, Natasha Stojanovich. For further information or advice on any related matters, please contact Natasha.

Disclaimer: This information is current as of September 2026. This article does not constitute legal advice and does not give rise to any solicitor/client relationship between Meridian Lawyers and the reader. Professional legal advice should be sought before acting or relying upon the content of this article.