It is a truth seldom grasped in building misconduct inquiries across all states: the goal should really not be all about denying liability at any cost.
We have often surmised that this is why litigation lawyers are not best suited to misconduct advocacy, as their golden rule seems to be more akin to that of the insurer; that is to deny liability at all costs, even in the face of clear evidence.
Misconduct charges are in relation to breaches of building legislation including laws and regulations. They should not be about disputed contractual claims between parties to a contract.
Firstly, the practitioner needs to decide whether to contest any of the charges or “allegations” and if so which and on what grounds. The alternative is to not contest charges and instead present a “plea in mitigation” to try to get the lightest possible sanction.
We often say to practitioners trying to defend ‘line ball’ charges that a disciplinary body will tend to err on the side of caution, due to the public imperative to protect the community. Charges should not be contested for speculative or purely political reasons.
That is not to say that the trier of fact will not give you a fair hearing in regard to disputes over liability, but you should have a good prospect of success on any charges that are to be contested. (This does not necessarily mean certainty, as these matters are seldom certain).
Mitigating factors
What is always underestimated is the extent to which the trier of fact in misconduct hearings is usually very keen to hear about:
- Any changes to professional practice or greater understanding as a result of any errors;
- Any contrition or remorse for anything that has occurred;
- A genuine recognition that a wrong has occurred and a commitment to change;
- A good prior track record to demonstrate any wrong conduct is an aberration rather than a pattern.
A plea in mitigation does not necessarily mean that the practitioner accepts all that is alleged. It is not a case of “waving the white flag”. Instead, the practitioner can take issue in the plea in mitigation with regard to some of the facts alleged by the prosecutor, even if they still admit that the legal ingredients of the charge have been established.
In the plea, the practitioner can also provide a detailed explanation of why they made certain decisions or acted in a certain way (a factual explanation). There will often be extenuating circumstances and sometimes the actions or omissions of third parties should be taken into account.
Possible Discounted Penalties for Pleas in Mitigation
The practitioner should be entitled to an automatic discount on any penalty handed down if they do not contest the charge. This is on the basis of High Court authority in the criminal case of Cameron v The Queen.
The party that does not contest a charge and instead presents a plea in mitigation to get the lightest possible sentence, can expect a lighter penalty than a party that contests but the charge is found proven anyway. If there is anything the practitioner wishes to say about the penalty then that needs to be a key focus of the case presented.
Invariably there will be at least some charges that are not contested, even if the majority of charges are challenged. Similarly, an appeal might be against a finding of guilt on some charges but about the severity of the penalty on others.
Where there is anything at all to say on the severity of the penalty that is to be handed down, the practitioner needs to be willing to talk about such matters as:
- The size and nature of their professional practice including the number and nature of projects they are responsible for;
- What their systems were at the time of any conduct complained of;
- What they have learned about any errors committed;
- What steps have been taken by the practitioner to rectify any harm that has occurred;
- What procedures or processes have been implemented to make it highly unlikely the conduct will re-occur.
What is Involved in a Plea for Mitigation?
A plea in mitigation takes some craft and ideally should be presented by a legal advocate. It should follow a formula of key ingredients.
Helpful character references from at least 2-3 people who have known the practitioner for at least several years, and can attest to their knowledge, integrity, and competence should be obtained prior to hearing. The references need to be recent and should mention briefly that the writer is aware that the reference is needed for a disciplinary proceeding.
It is also extremely helpful to be able to hand up an updated or revised policy or quality assurance manual that serves to address the kind of errors that may have arisen. You may well be asked by the trier of fact or the investigator whether the manual is a recent invention the week before the hearing and is simply ‘window dressing’. Therefore, it helps if you can answer truthfully that the procedures have already been implemented and there is a commitment to practice them.
There is case law in NSW (at the Administrative Decisions Tribunal level) to the effect that not every professional error should necessarily lead to an “adverse disciplinary finding”:
“While clause 145 [of the EP&A Regulation (NSW)] clearly imposes a professional obligation, it does not, in our opinion, follow that any breach of a professional obligation should result in an adverse disciplinary finding.” [Paragraph 41]
“It is a familiar aspect of the law relating to professional discipline that a distinction is drawn between incompetent conduct that, though careless and negligent, is not so objectionable as to justify an adverse disciplinary finding, and, on the other hand, incompetent conduct which is more serious and warrants an adverse finding.” [Paragraph 41]
In NSW for registered certifiers, that means a finding of “unsatisfactory professional conduct”, or potentially the more serious finding of “professional misconduct”.
A discretion on point needs to be exercised by the trier of fact, looking at all surrounding circumstances, rather than taking an ‘absolutist’ position.
There is also recent case law in building misconduct to the effect that a practitioner needs to display some awareness of their responsibility to the public and should not take an antagonistic or unnecessarily belligerent line in defending matters.
Admissions of error should be genuine rather than ‘token’ in nature, with a true recognition of the significance of any errors.
At one recent hearing the certifier presented a character reference that had said words to the effect that he should not be made into a “martyr” for “venturing into areas where others had feared to tread”.
This attracted criticism from the Tribunal as it suggested that the certifier was also adopting the view that he was a martyr. This could obviously detract from any perception that the certifier was contrite and remorseful about any errors.
In another proceeding the writer appeared at for a building surveyor who had helped design an aspect of building works, the practitioner was asked as part of the outcome to write a letter on how he would avoid “conflict of interest” in the future.
The practitioner tried to argue he was trying to assist and did not consider this to be conflict of interest. This presentation from the practitioner was assertive and did not appear to go down well with the tribunal, so the lawyer then needed to re-frame the tone of the submission about conflict of interest.
In disciplinary misconduct hearings there is not such a clear line between contesting allegations versus pleading guilty and then doing a plea in mitigation.
It is rather more blurred than that, but the trier of fact will still generally not tolerate a plea in mitigation that seeks to re-litigate findings of fact (or admissions) on liability. The plea in mitigation is all about finding the right formula and hitting the right notes.
Other possible ingredients of a plea in mitigation are:
- The practitioner has a clean prior record
- There is no pattern of relevant, adverse conduct
- There was no actual or potential harm flowing from the proven misconduct (Hans v Building Professionals Board [2008] NSWADT 285)
- The practitioner has remorse or is contrite
- The practitioner has paid some compensation or incurred expense as a result of the incident(s)
- Changes to workplace practices/protocols (that can be demonstrated)
- There was no dishonesty or attempt at pecuniary gain
The purpose of disciplinary proceedings is to protect the public and not to punish the practitioner (Craig v The Medical Board of South Australia [2001] SASC 169).
The reality is though that regulators see the preservation of standards and reputation for the overall industry as another goal of sentencing; therefore the goal of deterrence will play some part as a result.
Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34
This is a case of the High Court of Australia in relation to a husband’s petition for divorce on the grounds of adultery, and whether the fact of adultery had to be proven “beyond reasonable doubt” or based on the civil standard of proof (preponderance of probabilities).
The civil standard of proof is whether a proven set of facts is “more likely than not”. This basically translates to a likelihood of more than 50%. See for example civil disputes between a Builder and an Owner in relation to which party wrongfully terminated a contract, and should pay damages to the other.
It was held that a standard of proof somewhere in the middle between those extremes was the right test, in matters of misconduct. This was the standard of “reasonable satisfaction”.
The Court said (page 11):
“The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal.”
“In such matters “reasonable satisfaction” should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences.”
While the Briginshaw test of “reasonable satisfaction” should be applied to the question of whether or not the charge is proven, that is certainly not as hard for a prosecutor to prove as the “beyond reasonable doubt” test in the criminal court.
The onus will also be on the prosecutor to prove (to that standard of proof) that charges are established on the available evidence.
For related articles on (topic) please see:
The VBA Building Practitioner Misconduct Process in Victoria
What to do When Your Building Practitioner’s Licence has Been Suspended
Disclaimer
This article is not legal advice and discusses it’s topic in only general terms. Should you be in need of legal advice, please contact a construction law firm. The experienced team at Lovegrove & Cotton can help property owners and building practitioners resolve any type of building dispute.
When a Registered Building Practitioner (RBP) receives a notice from the Victorian Building Authority (VBA) that he or she has had their building practitioner licence suspended or cancelled, the RBP will need to act immediately as there is a 28 day appeal time period under Section 185 of the Building Act 1993 (VIC).
In most circumstances, the RBP has a right, upon receipt of the notice of suspension or notice of cancellation of their building practitioner licence, to have the decision reviewed by way of:-
• Internal review through the VBA; and/or
• Appeal to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).
If the RBP is a “directly affected person” under the act, the RBP will have 28 days to file the application for internal review with the VBA and 14 days after the end of the internal review period to file a review with the VCAT (Section 186(4)(a)). If the person wishes to directly apply to VCAT and not apply for internal review, they have 28 days from the date of the reviewable decision to apply to VCAT (Section 186(4)(b)). Accordingly, one must act quickly and the RBP’s suspension will not be lifted during the review period. Accordingly, the RBP should be aware that he or she cannot undertake building works pursuant to the suspended registration during this time.
Further, if the notice of suspension was determined by the Chief Commissioner or CEO of the VBA then the only review opportunity of the RBP is to apply to the VCAT; the internal review option will not be available.
An RBP who has received a notice of suspension or notice of cancellation of their building practitioner licence from the VBA would be well advised to engage a construction law expert experienced with practitioner misconduct advocacy. The requisite appeal instrument will need to be very carefully drafted as it needs to include all the relevant information for the VBA to review the reviewable decision. Legal representation is permitted for the RBP whether he or she elects to give written or oral submissions for the review.
By virtue of the fact that the suspension of a building practitioner’s registration can destroy that individual’s reputation and livelihood and potentially generate a litany of contractual repudiations, it is critical that the building practitioner deploy a construction law and practitioner law advocate immediately and close and careful regard must be had to the statutory review time limits. Note that once a registered building practitioner is suspended then he or she will in all likelihood be unable to complete any residential building contracts that may be on foot particularly in circumstances where the building practitioner is the RBP registered with a company. To say that the consequences of suspension are dire would be an understatement.
For related articles on (topic) please see:
The VBA building practitioner misconduct process in Victoria
Disclaimer
This article is not legal advice and discusses it’s topic in only general terms. Should you be in need of legal advice, please contact a construction law firm. The experienced team at Lovegrove & Cotton can help property owners and building practitioners resolve any type of building dispute.
If the Victorian Building Authority (VBA) decide that a complaint for a regulation breach against a building practitioner should be formally investigated, the Authority may elect to initiate a “show cause” process. This involves the authority sending a notice of the allegation and it’s factual grounds, as well as any supporting documents, to the individual.
Of course, there are no guarantees that the Victorian Building Authority (VBA) will investigate a complaint about a builder, building surveyor, engineer, or draftsperson for regulatory breach, as they may instead decide there is no basis for a finding or that the complaint instead concerns contractual disputes.
What are the grounds for a show cause notice?
Section 179 of the Building Act 1993 lists various grounds for which disciplinary action can be taken against a practitioner, including (but not limited to):
- A practitioner has engaged in unprofessional conduct or has failed to comply with a code of conduct;
- A practitioner that has contravened the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995, the Building Regulations 2018, or the Building Act 1993;
- A practitioner that has failed to comply with an order given to them by an authorised person (eg: a surveyor);
- A practitioner has failed to comply with an undertaking given to the VBA under the Act;
However, this does not include contractual disputes.
“Show cause” process
The “show cause” system involves the Authority sending a written notice to the practitioner setting out the complaint/allegation items and stating whether each item is found proven, and the likely or foreshadowed penalty for each proven item. Of course, this notice must also fully describe the factual grounds for any findings and refer to relevant documents, which should be forwarded to the practitioner in a brief of evidence. The show cause notice will be in writing and:
- states that the VBA intends to take disciplinary action in respect of the practitioner’s registration (and where the practitioner has multiple registrations, which of them)
- sets out the relevant facts and circumstances
- sets out the proposed disciplinary action and the grounds for it
- invites the practitioner to make representations about the notice.
Whether or not a charge is found proven should be based on the test in Briginshaw v Briginshaw, to the effect that the finder of fact should be “reasonably satisfied” that the charge is proven against the professional person. This is a higher standard of proof than the usual civil stand of balance of probabilities (“more likely than not”) that applies to civil or contractual disputes. The primary basis for the higher standard of proof in misconduct cases is the grave and significant ramifications on a professional person in terms of their career, their reputation, and their ability to earn a livelihood in their chosen vocation, should a finding of guilt prevail.
Based on the principles of “natural justice” and “procedural fairness” a professional individual should be fully appraised of the case against them; the grounds for the allegations supported by relevant documents, and the legal basis to substantiate a breach. Furthermore, the practitioner should be given sufficient time to provide a written or verbal explanation or defence to the conduct alleged.
The show cause notice will allow 28 days for the practitioner to provide a written reply and supporting documents to potentially argue against any allegation and/or argue that any proposed penalty is excessive or disproportionate. The practitioner should serve their written reply within 28 days, or within any extended time that is agreed between the practitioner and the Authority. In practice, it is not unusual for the Authority to agree on an extension for the reply submissions if a good explanation is given. Thereafter (and it may take some weeks) the Authority will consider the reply submissions on liability and penalty and then make a final decision that is communicated to the practitioner with reasons.
A practitioner faced with such a notice would be well advised to seek legal advice to assist in preparing the show cause reply, but of course this is not mandatory. In fact, if the practitioner so chooses they do not need to give any reply at all, although then the Authority will proceed to make findings on both liability and penalty in the absence of any counter argument from the practitioner. They could alternatively enter into a plea of mitigation, which is an attempt to get the lightest possible sentence without challenging the allegations by outlining mitigating factors which should be considered in the penalty.
Outcomes/Penalties
The show cause notice will set out whether or not each charge (as there are sometimes multiple charges / allegations) is proven against the practitioner and the intended penalty for each. The penalty can mean anything from only a reprimand (at the lower scale) to a penalty fine; ordering a course of further education to be completed within a set time or even a suspension of registration in more serious cases. The most serious potential sanction is a permanent cancellation of registration.
Needless to say, suspension or cancellation of registration should be reserved for only the most serious of cases and generally are foreshadowed where:
- The offending is very grave and has caused harm or potential harm to members of the community, whether in terms of economic loss or personal injury;
- There has been gross negligence or recklessness;
- There has been a pattern of serious conduct or negligence leading up to the current offence(s);
- There are elements of dishonesty or an attempt at pecuniary gain.
These elements are not all mandatory in order for a suspension or cancellation to follow, however in the absence of these elements the practitioner could mount an argument based on case law that any suspension or cancellation is disproportionate or unduly harsh. Lack of insight on the part of the practitioner and failure to accept responsibility for the conduct are relevant when assessing the appropriate sanction.
Purpose of misconduct decisions
Based on the decision in Craig v The Medical Board of South Australia, the purpose of the disciplinary process carried out by a registration body is not to “punish” the practitioner but to protect the community. Therefore, any sanction should only be to the severity that is needed to protect the community and the ultimate sanction should not be too punitive to an individual. Therefore, the consequence of a period of cancellation of registration or disqualification should not be elevated too highly in the context of protective jurisdiction.
That said, registration bodies commonly argue that a related goal of the disciplinary process is to maintain public confidence in the profession and industry, as well as the protection of the public. Assuming that this is likely to be a correct position, deterrence will play a part in the setting of penalties in misconduct matters given that such findings are generally on public record.
One finds that the final show cause decision after the consideration of the practitioner’s submissions may lead to a better outcome for that party – often in terms of a reduction in the cumulative penalty. Sometimes a practitioner will be prepared to live with that outcome, but not always.
The “internal review”
If the practitioner is dissatisfied with or disagrees with the findings on liability and/or the penalty in a show cause decision, they have 28 days from receipt of that document to lodge an application for “internal review” at the Victorian Building Authority. This application can be found online on the Authority’s website and does not attract a filing fee. One can request a lawyer to complete the application form on behalf of the practitioner with only a brief summary of the argument and what the practitioner considers should be the findings on liability and penalty needs to be included on the application form.
Once the application form is received by the Authority, it is incumbent on the VBA Internal Review unit to make a decision on the review within 28 days of receiving the application form. In this respect, they will offer the practitioner the chance to attend an Internal Review meeting where the practitioner (or their lawyer on their behalf) can make submissions on what the disciplinary decision should have been. In practice we find that such conferences can last up to 1 hour and that a lawyer will present the arguments on behalf of the practitioner, although the applicant themselves needs to be present and can answer questions and make comments throughout.
The Internal Review conferences are relatively informal and are recorded, with the option of providing further documents in support both prior to and in the days following the conference. In practice, we find that they take place relatively promptly after the internal review application is lodged due to the need for the Authority to make a decision within a narrow, defined timeframe.
The “external review”
If after the Internal Review the practitioner is still not satisfied, they have the option to appeal findings that some or all of the charges are proven (ie: on liability) or to appeal findings on the level of sanction. The basis for the latter may be that the Authority has not given sufficient weight to any factors in mitigation of conduct or favourable factors (eg: a change to professional conduct, an absence of prior misconduct) before making the decision.
Any such appeal would be an “external review” and it is lodged at the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). This would involve a significant uptick in legal fees given that one would probably need a lawyer to prepare the VCAT Application and preliminary submissions, and then appear at any directions hearing and mediation / compulsory conference.
Generally, a final Hearing (which could be 1-2 days, but possibly longer) is held in the Administrative List at VCAT but a date would not be fixed until there has been at least one attempt at mediation between the parties. Given the lengthy duration involved with the External Review process as opposed to the much quicker Internal Review, this would lend itself to higher legal fees. It is difficult to recover a practitioner’s legal fees even after a successful outcome at VCAT – as the Member may state that the practitioner bears some blame for the parties needing to be at the Tribunal even if the final outcome is more favourable to the applicant.
The timeframe to apply to VCAT for External Review of the Authority’s decision is again 28 days from receipt of the Internal Review findings. Therefore, there is no time to waste if a party wishes to pursue this route. One main advantage of a VCAT review is that it is a completely separate and independent forum, distinct from the VBA.
In the event that a building practitioner is faced with a show cause notice they would be well advised to seek prompt advice from a construction lawyer at an early opportunity so that the correct strategy in responding to the complaint is initiated front end.
For related articles on (topic) please see:
Pleas of mitigation for Building Misconduct Investigations: Golden Rules for Advocacy
What to do when your Building Practitioner’s Licence has been Suspended
Disclaimer
This article is not legal advice and discusses it’s topic in only general terms. Should you be in need of legal advice, please contact a construction law firm. The experienced team at Lovegrove & Cotton can help property owners and building practitioners resolve any type of building dispute.
Written by Justin Cotton
Cases cited:
Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] 44 Argus LR 334
Craig v The Medical Board of South Australia [2001] SASC 169
Where it All Began
Lovegrove and Cotton, in its original incarnation, was established in the midst of the recession of 1993. The firm’s founder, Kim Lovegrove, was intent on establishing a building law practice having resigned as a partner at a prominent Melbourne law firm. In 1998 the then minster for planning the Hon. Robert Maclellan, MLA opened the offices of Lovegrove Solicitors at 555 King St.
Plaque for the opening of Lovegrove’s former King St offices
In the early nineties, Kim headed a team that developed the National Model Building Act which became the regulatory blueprint for the overhauling of building regulation in a number of Australian jurisdictions.
In the mid-nineties, whilst focusing on growing the boutique building law firm, Kim was also appointed as a deputy executive director to the Australian Building Codes Board. Hence, Kim remained involved with building codification law reform.
The new millennium coincided with a return to building practitioner defendant work where the firm enhanced its reputation as a cross-jurisdictional dispute resolution practice.
The beginning of the ‘Justin Cotton Era’
The year 2002 saw the arrival of Justin Cotton, who hails from New Zealand. During his early years at the firm, Justin displayed a natural flair for construction law. He also focused on developing a particular expertise in building practitioner professional misconduct advocacy. Justin’s dexterity in the construction law arena has resulted in him forging a reputation, over the last two decades, as a pre-eminent practitioner advocate in Victoria, NSW, and Canberra.
After a small hiatus ten years ago, Justin returned to Lovegrove Solicitors and was made a partner at the firm. Justin never looked back and now heads up the firm in his capacity as director.
In 2016, Justin was made the chair of the HIA Industrial Relations and Legal Services Committee, and a member of the Regional Executive Committee, for the HIA Victorian Chapter.
Justin, who is also a qualified journalist, writes prolifically. Some 230,000 people have read his articles on Sourceable. Justin is the principal author for the Lovegrove & Cotton Bulletin and articles found in our Publications Library.
The firm presently has carriage of matters in Victoria, NSW, and the ACT.
A Reputation Built on Heritage and Construction Law Expertise
Over the 30 years of practice, Lovegrove & Cotton has garnered a reputation as a preeminent Australian construction law firm and for three years in a row was rated by Doyle’s Guide as one of the top construction law firms in the country.
Lovegrove and Cotton has also left an indelible footprint in the fabric of law reform in the Antipodes. The firm, in its previous incarnations has helped fashion modern day building regulation in a number of Australian jurisdictions that heralded proportionate liability, compulsory registration, and insurance of building practitioners in jurisdictions such as Victoria and the NT, along with probity and oversight regimes.
Humanitarian Commitment
Lovegrove & Cotton are committed to helping those who are in need and who live without many of the pleasantries that those in our profession take for granted. One of our humanitarian commitments is to provide help to HIV affected orphans and families in Ethiopia.
The firm has a very strong link with Ethiopia, and the relationship between the firm and the country heralds from Kim Lovegrove’s upbringing in Africa, more specifically, Malawi, Zambia, and Ethiopia in the late 1960s. Kim’s family lineage has a strong association with the region, with his grandfather, Norman Lovegrove, having held a senior position in UNESCO in Addis Ababa.
The firm’s commitment to Ethiopia has been reinforced by Tsigereda Lovegrove joining the firm in 2011. Tsigereda grew up in Ethiopia, where she met Kim and she subsequently joined him in Australia, where they were married.
In 2009, Kim, along with the firm’s former Financial Controller, David Lawn, made a documentary on HIV and the noble work of the Hope for Children Orphanage in Ethiopia.
Hope for Children was established some years ago and provides a home and sustenance for many hundreds of children who have been affected by the HIV epidemic.
For ten years, Lovegrove and Cotton and it’s previous incarnations funded the in-house lawyer at the Hope For Children (HFC) NGO for children orphaned by HIV. As the lawyer, Rahel, has moved on to another position, Lovegrove and Cotton continues to help fund the chief operating officer at HFC.
It is this sort of commitment to philanthropy that led to Kim Lovegrove being awarded the RML, Royal Medal of the Lion, by Prince Ermias Sahle Selassie (President of the Crown Council of Ethiopia and grandson of the late Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie) in late 2017.
The Ebola Building Standard
In addition to the work done on the ground and through financial support, the firm has also collaborated on intellectual initiatives such as the Ebola Building Standard that canvassed best practice building protocols to diminish the chance of the spread of Ebola in buildings and other built environments.
The firm sponsors the Ethiopian Consulate to Victoria
In the years 2020 – 2022 the firm sponsored the Ethiopian Consulate as Kim Lovegrove was made Ethiopian Honorary consul to Victoria. Tsigereda Lovegrove, whilst managing the law firm and studying law, assisted the Honorary Consul as a consular attaché. In light of her bilingualism in Amharic and English, she was a great asset to the Consulate and made for seamless interaction with the Ethiopian diaspora in Melbourne.
World Bank deployments
In the years 2019 to 2022 Kim was engaged as a senior law reform consultant by the World Bank to advise four Chinese Governments; Shanghai, Changzhou, Chongqing, and Beijing, on international best practice approaches to the design of building control regulation. The WB team took out a WB award for their endeavours. Kim was also retained by the Disaster and Resilience section of the Bank to review the first ever Malawian building regulations and made recommendations on point.
The launch of the IBQC
In 2019, Kim in association with the University of Canberra and Professors Robert Whittaker AM and Charles Lemckert, collaborated to establish the international thought leadership hub, the International Building Quality Centre. Kim was appointed as the chair and maintains this role to date and continuing.
A link to the organisation’s website can be found here.
The Governor General formally launched the IBQC in 2020 in Canberra.
A board was subsequently put together comprising of experts of international recognition. The board members comprise members from the UK, USA, GB, Peru, Kenya, South Africa, Australia, and NZ.
The IBQC has now been legally incorporated in the USA courtesy of the largess from the US based International Codes Council. The IBQC has published a number of international good practice guidelines for the development of building regulation in both developed and emerging economy settings. The legal incorporation secures the perpetuity of an organisation that is already having a profound impact on global best practice approaches to building regulatory ecology.
Firm Celebrates Justin Cottons 20 years of construction lawyering
On the 28 September 2022, we all celebrated Justin`s 20 years of construction lawyering
I remember interviewing Justin in our King Street offices back in August of 2002, the 18th to be precise, as if it was yesterday. Justin was fresh off the plane from our home town Auckland, New Zealand. We connected the dots: both studied law at Auckland Uni; we hailed from the balmy seaside suburbs; were (and still are) All Black supporters enjoying a mutuality of high regard for good Australian shirazzes.
In keeping with the “it’s a small world” metaphor, he revealed that I had taught his younger brother, at Bucklands Beach Intermediate whilst studying law; I remember saying what were the odds? We exchanged fond memories and anecdotes of some of our favourite teachers. The teachers in the early eighties were often seen sporting knee length shorts, long socks, and winter cardigans. We reminisced over one particular multi-talented guitar playing teacher who used to perform a stirring rendition of Harry Belafontes` Banana Boat Song .. ‘Dayo, daaaayo, daylight come and we want to go home’ to the kids in the music session.
Justin got the job. 20 years on, I can say: what you saw was what you got. Straightforward, capable and affable. In keeping with his qualification in journalism, he had an economy and efficiency of language that was well suited to construction law parlance. His narrative was complemented by a great turn of phrase, and I always loved reading his advices and insightful articles. (If you haven’t had occasion to read some of his construction law musings ‘do yourself a favour’ and log into our e-Library).
Justin`s been with Lovegrove and Cotton and its earlier incarnations for just shy of two decades, save for an 18 month stint at another law firm a decade or so ago. Two of the most significant moments of my professional life were facilitating his joining the firm, and his affording me the fortuity of accepting the partnership offer when he came back to the practice. Justin has now been on the letterhead for more than a decade.
Mr Cotton is a pillar of the firm and a natural construction lawyer from the get go. He went on to become a very experienced and revered construction lawyer on the Eastern Seaboard, possessing outstanding construction and planning law knowledge. I say this descriptively and objectively. Having been a partner at two large law firms in my earlier years, and having founded the original incarnation of this firm, Lovegrove Solicitors in 1993, my descriptors are experientially and evidentially based. I have been afforded the good grace of knowing a great many outstanding construction lawyers within our firm and throughout the profession and can attest to the fact that Justin is up there with the best of the best.
He`s also a very nice man, a kind soul who always has more than a few dollars in his pocket for our more vulnerable brothers and sisters on the street. Unwavering in the firm’s support of the HIV NGO Hope For Children Ethiopia and in our underwriting of their in-house lawyer for many years. He has served and chaired the HIA Industrial Relations and Legal Services Committee for some years now – a position that he is very proud of and takes very seriously.
Justin afforded me a lot of support when I was Ethiopian Honorary Consul to Victoria. He never for a second shied away from supporting any of the firms’ altruistic initiatives, be it the aforementioned or pro-bono staff resourcing of IBQC initiatives.
Thank you Justin for your support and your loyalty that goes way back. You’re a Champ, Champ.
By Adjunct Professor Kim Lovegrove MSE RML
Tsigereda Lovegrove Bar Admission; Second Generation Coming Through
On the 25 October 2022 Tsigereda was admitted to the Victorian Bar and is now practicing as a construction and planning lawyer. So we now have a second generation Lovegrove picking up the ball and running with it. This will secure the longevity of the firm going forward and it heralds generational change as Tsigereda is stepping into the shoes of the founder. We now have four construction and planning lawyers and a senior paralegal studying law.
30 Years On, and To the Future – The Firm, Tsigereda, and Justin’s Vision
“Moving forward, Lovegrove & Cotton will build upon its established reputation and legacy in the building and construction law industry, whilst maintaining it’s strong connections with Ethiopia.
The firm looks forward to continuing to serve it’s excellent client base, and continuing to make an impact on the building regulatory ecology internationally.
To our loyal clients, stakeholders and colleagues, thank you. You have helped the firm realise this achievement – 30 years is a substantial corporate milestone. We look forward to the next 30.”
Justin and Tsigereda
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- …
- 84
- Next Page »