Disciplinary hearings

Disciplinary Hearings - July - Sept 2018

Date published:

Disciplinary Hearings - July - Sept 2018

The following is a summary of the hearings held by the Board from July through to September 2018. There are also some more detailed articles on cases the Board considers other electrical workers could learn from.

MonthFindingPenalty
July Three hearings were held for two practitioners – One for Mr Rakesh Kumaran and two in relation to Mr Pritesh Pritesh. More detailed summaries of these hearings can be found in the Notable Hearings section of Electron.
Kumaran1659 Mr Rakesh Kumaran was found to have committed disciplinary offences under section
143(g) of the Act which relates to employing, directing and permitting an unauthorised person to carry out prescribed electrical work.
Mr Kumaran was fined $5,000 and ordered to pay costs of $1,500. The Board also ordered that the matter be published in the Electron.
Pritesh 1550 Mr Pritesh Pritesh was found to have carried out prescribed electrical work that he was not authorised to do under section 143(d) of the Act. He was also found to have provided a false or misleading return under section 143(f) of the Act. The offending was related to that in Kumaran 1659. The Board cancelled the Respondent’s licence and ordered that he may not be relicensed for a period of 12 months. He was ordered to pay costs of $1,500. The Board ordered that the matter be published in the Electron.

The penalty order was made in conjunction with that in CAS 1621.
Pritesh 1621 Mr Pritesh Pritesh was found to have carried out prescribed electrical work that he was not authorised to do under section 143(d) of the Act. He was also found to have provided a false or misleading return under section 143(f) of the Act. The offending was related to that in Kumaran 1659. The Board cancelled the Respondent’s licence and ordered that he may not be relicensed for a period of 12 months. He was ordered to pay costs of $1,500. The Board ordered that the matter be published in the Electron.

The penalty order was made in conjunction with that in CAS 1550.
August Two electrical workers were found to have committed disciplinary offences.
Practitioner 1 The electrical worker was found to have been negligent in his supervision of a trainee under section 143(a)(i) of the Act and to have provided a false or
misleading return under section 143(f) of the Act.
The Board imposed a fine of $750 and ordered costs of $500. The fine and costs were reduced on the basis that the electrical worker accepted responsibility.
Practitioner 2 The electrical worker was found to have carried out negligent prescribed electrical work under section 143(a)(i) of the Act and to have provided a false or misleading return under section 143(f) of the Act. The Board ordered that the electrical worker undergo training and that he pay costs of $500. The Board took into account the electrical worker’s acceptance of responsibility in setting the penalty and costs.
September Five disciplinary hearings were held. Four electrical workers were found to have committed disciplinary offences. Further details on the Pritesh matter are contained in the Notable Hearings section of Electron.
Pritesh 1969 Mr Pritesh Pritesh was found to have committed disciplinary offences under
sections 143(a)(i), 143(b)(ii), 143(d) and 143(f) of the Act.
The Board cancelled the Respondent’s registration and ordered that he may not be able to re-register for a period of five years. He was ordered to pay costs of $1,500. The Board ordered that the matter be published in the Electron.
Practitioner 2 The electrical worker was found guilty of providing eight false or misleading returns under section 143(f) of the Act The electrical worker was censured and fined $750. He was ordered to pay costs of $500.
Practitioner 3 The electrical worker was found guilty of providing a false or misleading return under section 143(f) of the Act. The electrical worker was censured and fined $250. He was ordered to pay costs of $250. The Board took the Respondent’s acceptance of responsibility into
account.
Practitioner 4 The electrical worker was found to have carried out prescribed electrical work in a negligent manner under section 143(a)(i) of the Act and to have provided a false or misleading return under section 143(f) of the Act. The Board imposed a fine of $750 and ordered costs of $500. The fine and costs were reduced on the basis that the electrical worker accepted responsibility.