Complaint Decisions – December 2025
The Electrical Workers Registration Board decides whether members should be disciplined for offences under the Electricity Act 1992 (the Act). A summary of recent disciplinary decisions is below. Each decision will be recorded on the Public Register for 3 years.
Gang Liu
The Board decided that the respondent committed disciplinary offences under sections 143(b)(ii) and 143(f) of the Electricity Act 1992.
What happened
The respondent negligently created a risk of serious harm through having carried out prescribed electrical work. They also provided a false or misleading return.
The respondent:
- did not carry out an adequate verification inspection of the electrical installation
- did not identify that 2–3 metres of mains cable had been severed and removed, leaving exposed conductors
- did not conduct required electrical testing, including polarity and earth fault loop testing
- issued a Certificate of Verification certifying compliance when the installation did not meet required standards.
The lack of proper inspection created a significant risk of fatal electric shock.
Outcome of the decision
- $3,000 fine
- $250 in costs.
Scott Carroll
The Board decided that the respondent committed disciplinary offences under sections 143(a)(i) and 143(f) of the Electricity Act 1992.
What happened
The respondent carried out prescribed electrical work in a negligent manner and provided a false or misleading return.
The respondent:
- used incorrect materials for underground installation without proper warning signage
- buried underground cable too shallow
- did not protect mains cables and earthing conductor from direct contact
- installed a switchboard without Earth and Neutral bars
- issued a Certificate of Compliance for non-compliant work.
Outcome of the decision
- $1,000 fine
- $250 in costs.
Shitao Liu
The Board decided that the respondent committed 2 disciplinary offences under sections 143(a)(i) and 143(f) of the Electricity Act 1992.
What happened
The respondent caused prescribed electrical work to be carried out in a negligent manner by nor providing adequate supervision. They also provided a false or misleading return.
The respondent:
- did not verify the apprentice’s work properly, relying on a photo without measurements
- allowed a socket outlet to be installed within a damp zone without required protection
- issued a Certificate of Compliance for non-compliant work and without naming the apprentice or noting supervision, as required.
Outcome of the decision
- $1,500 fine
- $250 in costs.
Joseph Moses
The Board decided that the respondent committed disciplinary offences under sections 143(b)(ii) and 143(f) of the Electricity Act 1992.
What happened
The respondent negligently created a risk of serious harm through having carried out prescribed electrical work. They also provided a false or misleading return.
The respondent:
- did not adequately test and disconnect a low voltage equipment fitting
- left steel conduit and a lighting pole electrically live after certified disconnection
- issued a Certificate of Compliance certifying disconnection when the installation remained electrically live
The inadequate disconnection work created an unacceptable risk of serious harm.
Outcome of the decision
- $3,000 fine
- $250 in costs.
Edwin Tope
The Board decided that the respondent committed disciplinary offences under sections 143(a)(i) and 143(f) of the Electricity Act 1992.
What happened
The respondent caused prescribed electrical work to be carried out in a negligent manner by not providing adequate supervision. They also provided a false or misleading return.
The respondent:
- did not supervise trainees installing a new distribution switchboard
- allowed the switchboard to be installed without fusing
- allowed incorrect wiring connections without a fuse
- allowed cables to be installed without secondary insulation
- issued a Certificate of Compliance for non-compliant work
Outcome of the decision
- $1,000 fine
- $250 in costs.
Case 6
The Board decided that the respondent committed a disciplinary offence under section 143(a)(ii) of the Electricity Act 1992.
What happened
The respondent carried out prescribed electrical work contrary to an enactment.
The respondent:
- did not follow mandatory inspection requirements while carrying out an electrical inspection as they did not identify that the location of the main earth electrode was not labelled on the main switchboard.
Outcome of the decision
- censure
- $250 in costs.
Case 7
The Board decided that the respondent committed disciplinary offences under sections 143(a)(i) and 143(f) the Electricity Act 1992.
What happened
The respondent carried out prescribed electrical work in a negligent manner and did not provide a return.
The respondent:
- did not insulate and enclose protective earthing conductors at lighting points
- did not insulate or enclose the electrical joint for the hob connection
- incorrectly used green/yellow conductors as active conductors when replacing switches
- left live conductors in an accessible ceiling cavity covered only with tape and not enclosed
- left unsheathed cables exposed at recessed downlights
- did not issue a Certificate of Compliance and an Electrical Safety Certificate.
Outcome of the decision
- ordered to attend a regulations course and pass the regulations exam within 12 months
- $250 in costs.
Cases 8 and 9
The Board decided that each respondent committed disciplinary offences under sections 143(d) and 143(f) of the Electricity Act 1992.
What happened
Each respondent carried out prescribed electrical work that they were not authorised to do and provided a false or misleading return.
In each case, the respondent:
- performed prescribed electrical work while their practising licence was expired
- issued Certificates of Compliance for work carried out during the unlicensed period.
Outcome of the decisions
- $1,000 fine
- $250 in costs.