Was this page helpful?
Your rating will help us improve our website.
Log in
Determinations
Access Building Appeals Board determinations, including significant decisions and information on how to obtain copies of determinations.
Obtaining a copy of a determination of the Building Appeals Board (BAB)
Some determinations made by the BAB from 2018 onwards are available on the Australasian Legal Information Institute (Austlii) website.
Determinations made by the BAB for a specific address that is not published on Austlii can be requested by sending an email to the registry of the BAB.
In most cases, determinations of the BAB are available to the public on request, unless a confidentiality or suppression order had been made by the BAB with respect to a determination. There is no fee prescribed by the regulations to request or receive a determination of the BAB.
Significant determinations of the BAB
D'Agostino v Merrick
Cost of Proceedings
An application made by the Interested Parties pursuant to cl 16(2) of Sch 3 to the Building Act 1993 (Act) for their costs of the proceeding to be paid by the Applicant – bear own costs jurisdiction – whether an order for costs is just – Stewart v Building Practitioners Board & Anor [2001] VSC 349; Martin v Fasham Johnson Pty Ltd [2007] VSC 54; Riverhill (Vic) Pty Ltd v Smith (No. 2) [2018] VBAB 34; Walsh v Singh [2018] VBAB 41; Aussie Invest Corp Pty Ltd v Hobsons Bay City Council [2004] VCAT 2188; and BAB Practice Note 9A-2023 considered.
Huang v Victorian Building Authority
Appeal
An appeal made under s 141(c) of the Building Act 1993 (the Act) by the adjoining owner against a refusal by the Victorian Building Authority (Building and Plumbing Commission) to make a declaration under s 89 of the Act that emergency protection work is required – whether the Building Appeals Board is seized of jurisdiction to consider the appeal – whether the applicant has standing to commence the appeal – definition of adjoining owner and adjoining property considered (s 3 of the Act).
Huang v Singh
Appeal
An appeal made under s 141(c) of the Building Act 1993 (the Act) between the adjoining owner and the relevant building surveyor against a failure, within a reasonable time, or refusal to make a determination under s 87 of the Act as to the appropriateness of proposed protection work – applicant continues to prosecute appeal after the question whether the respondent was empowered to make a s 87 determination was answered in the negative – whether the BAB is seized of jurisdiction – whether the applicant has standing to commence the appeal – definition of an adjoining owner and adjoining property considered – s 3 of the Building Act 1993.
Jones v Reardon
Costs
An application for costs of the proceeding made pursuant to cl 16(2) of Schedule 3 to the Building Act 1993 – whether it is just to make an order for costs in a costs bear own jurisdiction - Stewart v Building Practitioners Board [2001] VSC 349; Martin v Fasham Johnson Pty Ltd [2007] VSC 54; Merraton Pty Ltd v Maroondah City Council [2008] VCAT 888; Mornington Peninsula Shire Council v Mattieson Pty Ltd [2011] VCAT 1169; Browne v Metro Building Surveying Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] VBAB 95 considered.
In the matter of 12 Havelock Street, Burwood
Modification of Building Regulations – An application commenced in the Building Appeals Board on 30 October 2025 and made under s 160(2)(b) of the Building Act 1993 for a determination to modify reg 86B of the Building Regulations 2018, which applies to a Class 1a building – whether the Applicant should have instead sought the consent of the local municipality in a report and consent application – In the matter of 25 Cairo Road Mont Albert North [2024] VBAB 60 considered.
Fitzpatrick v Municipal Building Surveyor for the City of Whittlesea
APPEAL PROCEEDING
An appeal made under s 142(2)(a) of the Building Act 1993 (the Act) by the owner of the building or land against the making of a building order by the relevant building surveyor under 111 of the Act – whether the pool barrier the subject of the order must comply with AS1926.1-1993 – Building Act 1993, s 10 – Building Regulations 2018, regs 5; 147 C, 147T - Building Code of Australia 2010 - Volume Two, cl 3.9.3.0 – Hasan v Moreland CC [2005] VCAT 1931; Anne Black v Owners Corporation OC1-POS539033E [2018] VCAT 185; Lewis v Threadwell [2004] VCAT 547; Borghesi & Anor v Municipal Building Surveyor for the Sire of Mornington Peninsula [2025] VBA 60 considered.
Sarup & Anor v Municipal building surveyor for the Greater Geelong City Council
Appeal 1:
Appeal made under s 142(1)(a) of the Building Act 1993 (the Act) by the owner of the building or land against the decision of the relevant building surveyor to serve a building notice on the owner under s 106 of the Act.
Appeal 2:
Appeal made under s 142(2)(c) f the Act by the owner of the building or land against the refusal of the relevant building surveyor to amend or cancel a building order.
Gunasagran v Short
Practice and procedure
Whether, upon the cancellation of the building notice and building order by the relevant building surveyor, the Building Appeals Board retains its jurisdiction to make any orders in respect of costs of and incidental to the two appeal proceedings of which the notice and order are respectively the subject of – Clause 16(2) of Sch 3 to the Building Act (Vic) – Colonial Range v CES-Queen (BAB4 - Protection Works) [2017] VSC 317 [2017] VSC 317; Carson v Turner [2019] VSC 427; Carew v Casey [2025] VBAB 18; Nandacumaran and Victorian Building Authority [2022] AATA 3150; In the matter of 1615-1617 Malvern Road, Glen Iris [2024] VBAB 128; Walsh v Singh [2018] VBAB 41; McDonald v Wales [2023] VBAB 8; Grist v Owners Corporation 1 [2025] VBAB 37 and Gorey & Anor v Cheng [2025] VBAB 100 considered.
Martinez & Anor v Alexopoulos
Appeals
Whether a decision by the relevant building surveyor to refuse to cancel a building notice and a building order should be quashed – whether it is appropriate to cancel a building notice and building order which relates to building work undertaken without a building permit –factors to consider – consequences of cancelling a building notice and building order.
Martinez & Anor v Alexopoulos
Appeal - Preliminary question
What is natural ground level, as that expression is referenced in the Building Regulations 2018 (Vic) – whether natural ground level is determined by reference to the pre-development condition of the land; Expert witnesses – whether a historical personal relationship between an expert witness and the person who engages the expert is a factor to consider when weighing the opinion evidence of one expert against another - Shire of Gisborne v King (King) [1994] VicRp 23; [1994] 1 VR 364; Mrocki v Bayside CC [2015] VCAT 1731; Faversham Mews Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC (Faversham) [2016] VCAT 1954; Mrocki [2015] VCAT 1731; Coda One Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC (Coda) [2024] VCAT 1022.
Holman & Anor v Calia & Anor
Dispute
Dispute referred pursuant to s 158 of the Building Act 1993 between owners of buildings with a party wall about the construction of the wall or how much of the cost of construction is to be met by each of the owners.
O'Neill v Port Phillip City Council
Appeal
An appeal made under s 144(1)(a) of the Building Act 1993 against the refusal of the Council under reg 153 of the Building Regulations 2018 to consent to the construction of alterations and additions to a dwelling on land liable to flooding – consideration of the meaning of determination – consideration of current and future flood risk – consideration of danger to life, health and safety – whether the Building Appeals Board should exercise its discretion to specify a level for the surface of the lowest floor of a building on the site.
Martinez & Anor v Alexopoulos
Appeal - Preliminary question
What is natural ground level, as that expression is referenced in the Building Regulations 2018 (Vic) – whether natural ground level is determined by reference to the pre-development condition of the land; Expert witnesses – whether a historical personal relationship between an expert witness and the person who engages the expert is a factor to consider when weighing the opinion evidence of one expert against another - Shire of Gisborne v King (King) [1994] VicRp 23; [1994] 1 VR 364; Mrocki v Bayside CC [2015] VCAT 1731; Faversham Mews Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC (Faversham) [2016] VCAT 1954; Mrocki [2015] VCAT 1731; Coda One Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC (Coda) [2024] VCAT 1022.
Verma & Anor v Municipal building surveyor for the Shire of Cardinia
Appeal 1
456409 - Appeal made under s 142(1)(b) of the Building Act 1993 by the owner of the building or land against the failure within a reasonable time, or refusal by the relevant building surveyor to cancel a building notice on being requested to do so by the owner.
Appeal 2
456510 - Appeal made under s 142(2)(a) of the Building Act 1993 (the Act) by the owner of the building or land against the making of a building order by the relevant building surveyor under s 111 of the Act.
In the Matter of 365 Little Collins Street, Melbourne
An application made under s 160(2)(b) of the Building Act 1993 for a determination that cl 3.1(b) of Specification C1.1 of the Building Code of Australia 1996, Volume One applies to a Class 5 and 6 building in a modified or varied form, having regard to the Risk Assessment Report rev 1.3, dated 9 December 2024, prepared by Basic Expert – whether to permit partial retention of the aluminium composite panels (ACP-PE) (100% organic polymer) installed on the east, north and west elevation of the building.
O'Bryan & Anor v Strod60 Pty Ltd
Dispute referred under s 158 of the Building Act 1993 between owners of buildings with a party wall about the construction of the wall or how much of the cost of construction is to be met by each of the owners.
In the matter of 344 Heaths Road, Hoppers Crossing (No 1)
Practice and procedure
An application commenced in the Building Appeals Board (BAB) on 20 February 2025 and made under s 160(2)(b) of the Building Act 1993 for a determination to modify or vary the exemptions (1) of governing requirement A6G1(1) of the Building Code of Australia, 2022 Volume Two which applies to a Class 1a and 10a building – whether Exemption (1) of the governing requirement A6G1 is a provision of the Building Regulations 2018 within the meaning of s 160(1) of the Building Act 1993 – That is can the BAB modify or vary Exemption (1) in an application made pursuant to s 160(2)(b) of the Building Act 1993?
In the matter of the Melbourne Cricket Ground
A determination of the BAB considered a compliance assessment application made under s 160A of the Building Act 1993 by the Melbourne Cricket Ground Trust. In that determination the BAB considered whether the proposed performance solution for the cladding arrangement at the Northern Stand of the Melbourne Cricket Ground complies with the Performance Requirements CP1, CP2 and CP4 of the Building Code of Australia 2019, Volume One.
In the matter of 87-89 Pound Road, Warrandyte
A determination of the BAB determined that it does not have jurisdiction to modify regulation 59 of the Building Regulations 2018 to permit the extension of the completion date on a building permit even if the building permit has not lapsed. You can read that determination by clicking on the link above.
It is also important to note that any appeal to the BAB against a decision of the relevant building surveyor refusing to extend the completion date on a building permit must be filed with the BAB before the permit lapses and within 30 days after the day you are in receipt of the relevant building surveyor’s refusal or deemed refusal.
Frequently asked questions
Last updated 15 September 2026