The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal's decision in Snart v Victorian Building Authority [2026] VCAT 650 may prove to be the most significant combustible cladding disciplinary decision delivered since the commencement of the State's post-Lacrosse regulatory response. The Tribunal set aside the VBA's internal review decision in its entirety and substituted a decision that none of the remaining disciplinary grounds had been proven.

That outcome is significant in its own right. However, the broader importance of the decision lies elsewhere.

For years, a number of disciplinary proceedings involving registered building surveyors have proceeded in the shadow of the same fundamental issues. Those proceedings have involved allegations that surveyors improperly approved combustible cladding products, relied upon incorrect interpretations of the Building Code of Australia (BCA), failed adequately to document their assessments and could not have reached the level of satisfaction required by s 24(1)(a) of the Building Act 1993 (VIC).

Many practitioners regarded Snart as the test case. The reason is now obvious. Few proceedings have required the Tribunal to engage so comprehensively with the principal statutory and technical defences typically raised by surveyors in historical cladding approvals.

The obvious question flowing from the decision is therefore this: what remains of the VBA's disciplinary model if the foundational assumptions underpinning that model have now been rejected?

At one level, the proceeding concerned only one surveyor and three developments.

At another level, however, the proceeding addressed issues that have arisen repeatedly throughout the combustible cladding disciplinary program.

The Tribunal was required to consider:

• the proper construction of the Low Rise Concession contained in clause 3.10 of Specification C1.1;

• the operation of the Attachment Concession contained in clause 2.4 of Specification C1.1;

• the meaning of "satisfied" in section 24(1)(a) of the Building Act;

• the role of historical industry practice;

• the distinction between documentary deficiency and substantive non-compliance; and

• whether a surveyor could lawfully reach the requisite state of satisfaction even where aspects of the approval process would now be approached differently.

Those issues are not unique to Mr Snart. They sit at the heart of many of the proceedings commenced against surveyors over the past decade.

Perhaps the most consequential aspect of the decision is the Tribunal's treatment of clause 3.10 of Specification C1.1 of the BCA.

The VBA advanced a construction which, in substance, limited the operation of the concession to timber framing and rejected the proposition that it could support the broader use of combustible materials in the manner contended for by the applicant. The Tribunal rejected that construction. Instead, it preferred the interpretation advanced by the surveyor and accepted that the ordinary meaning of the text should prevail. The Tribunal expressly concluded that the VBA's construction placed an unacceptable strain on the language of the provision and would effectively deprive the concession of meaningful operation.

The importance of that conclusion cannot be overstated.

For many years, practitioners, regulators, consultants and surveyors have debated the scope and operation of the Low Rise Concession. Until now, there has been little meaningful judicial guidance on the issue. The Tribunal has now undertaken that exercise and reached a conclusion that is likely to be relied upon heavily in future proceedings.

Indeed, one of the fundamental assumptions underpinning numerous historical allegations has been that combustible cladding approvals were necessarily inconsistent with the requirements of the BCA. The Tribunal has now demonstrated that the position is not nearly so straightforward.

The Tribunal's treatment of the Attachment Concession is equally significant.

The VBA contended that the surveyor could not have been satisfied that various ACP products complied with the BCA. In response, Mr Snart relied upon clause 2.4 of Specification C1.1 and his assessment that the products constituted attachments rather than external wall construction.

After reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal repeatedly concluded that the VBA had failed to establish that Mr Snart could not have formed the relevant state of satisfaction. It accepted the surveyor's evidence regarding the manner in which the products were used, the existence of sprinkler systems, the location of exits and the broader fire safety context of the relevant buildings.

Again, the implications extend well beyond the proceeding itself.

Many historical projects involved ACP products used decoratively around balconies, entry canopies, architectural features and façade treatments. Those projects have often involved debate regarding whether such products formed part of the external wall system or constituted attachments capable of falling within clause 2.4.

The Tribunal has now considered that question in detail.

While much attention will inevitably focus upon the Tribunal's analysis of the concessions, the more important aspect of the decision lies in its treatment of section 24(1)(a).

The VBA's case depended upon establishing that the surveyor could not have been satisfied that the building work and building permit would comply with the Act and Regulations. The Tribunal repeatedly emphasised that this was a serious allegation and one which required proof.

Importantly, the Tribunal distinguished between:

• proving a different interpretation of the BCA;

• identifying deficiencies in documentation;

• demonstrating that a different assessment pathway may have been preferable; and

• proving that a surveyor could not honestly and genuinely have formed the requisite state of satisfaction.

That distinction permeates the decision.

In relation to both the Glen Iris and Prahran developments, the Tribunal accepted that there may have been deficiencies in the manner in which certain assessment pathways were documented. However, it nevertheless concluded that those matters did not establish that the surveyor could not have reached the required state of satisfaction.

The Tribunal repeatedly returned to the central proposition that the proceeding was not about perfection. It was about whether the VBA had proven the disciplinary allegation it chose to bring.

Whether intentionally or otherwise, the Tribunal has created a considerably more difficult environment for future disciplinary prosecutions concerning historical combustible cladding approvals.

The decision confirms that:

• the Low Rise Concession is capable of meaningful operation;

• the Attachment Concession remains a viable pathway in appropriate circumstances;

• historical industry practice is relevant to the assessment of a surveyor's conduct;

• documentary deficiencies are not necessarily determinative; and

• proving that a surveyor could not have formed the requisite state of satisfaction is a significantly more demanding exercise than merely identifying an alternative interpretation of the BCA.

Those conclusions present obvious difficulties for disciplinary proceedings which rest upon substantially similar allegations.

That is not to suggest that all pending prosecutions will fail. Each proceeding will continue to turn on its own facts, its own documentation and its own evidentiary record.

Nevertheless, Snart has fundamentally altered the terrain.

For the first time, the Tribunal has provided detailed judicial consideration of the principal defences historically advanced by building surveyors. In doing so, it has rejected a number of assumptions that have underpinned the VBA's combustible cladding disciplinary program for years.

The real significance of Snart therefore lies not in what it means for one surveyor.

It lies in what it means for every other surveyor whose proceeding was waiting for this decision.

The implications of Snart extend well beyond the parties involved. For advice on combustible cladding disputes, regulatory investigations or disciplinary proceedings, please contact our Construction & Engineering team.