Three points of disclosure for the reader:
1. Site Inspections is a named participant in this matter, not a third-party observer. Our principal, Zeher Khalil, was the building inspector whose investigation brought defects on Mr Little's sites to public attention; that investigation contributed to the regulator becoming aware of the matter; and Site Inspections' photographs and footage have been used by major media in their coverage.
2. Public commentary is on the record. The Herald Sun (Craig Dunlop, 24 January 2025) reported that Mr Khalil characterised Mr Little's work in strong terms, including describing him as "Australia's worst builder of 2024." Mr Little has disputed that characterisation and has sent legal threats in response. The blog article you are reading is a separate editorial product and uses measured legal register — it does not adopt the strong characterisation. The fact of the dispute is itself part of the public record and is reported here as such.
3. Allegation discipline. The regulator's allegations remain allegations until tested on the merits at VCAT. Matters now decided by the Tribunal (procedural rulings, the litigation restraint order in BP11/2025, costs orders) are reported as findings. The Supreme Court's January 2025 refusal of the Builder's injunction is reported as a finding of Justice Kerri Judd. The substantive merits of the regulator's case have not yet been heard.
Tribunal restrains builder's delay tactics: BPC suspension stands, homeowners still waiting on substantive relief
The regulator's immediate suspension of registered Melbourne builder Andrew Donald Little — taken in December 2024 before any merits hearing — has been progressively vindicated across two forums. In January 2025 the Supreme Court of Victoria refused his urgent injunction; in April 2025 VCAT refused his stay; in April 2026 a limited litigation restraint order was imposed under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 (Vic) after the Builder conceded he was pursuing applications to delay proceedings. Multiple homeowner matters remain on foot. Substantive relief is still pending.
01What happened
A registered Melbourne builder was suspended before any tribunal had heard the case against him. The legal power that allowed it sits in a single sub-section of Victorian law.
On 20 December 2024, the Victorian Building Authority — the regulator that ran the building practitioner registration system before the Building and Plumbing Commission absorbed its functions on 1 July 2025 — gave notice to Andrew Donald Little that his registration was suspended immediately, pending the outcome of a show cause process. The suspension was stated to take effect from 30 December 2024 and to remain in place until 30 November 2027 unless earlier revoked or stayed by the Tribunal.
The day after the suspension took the form of notice, on 21 December 2024, the regulator served Mr Little with a formal show cause notice. That notice documents 86 alleged factual breaches, which the regulator's public release on 6 January 2025 described as supporting 58 grounds for proposed disciplinary action. The proposed penalties were severe: a three-year disqualification — the statutory maximum — cancellation of both of Mr Little's registrations, and cumulative fines totalling $160,000.
The matter has not been decided on the merits. The Tribunal has heard two interlocutory applications and dismissed both. The substantive review of the immediate suspension and the formal disciplinary action of 3 March 2025 has not yet been heard.
Every regulator finding mentioned in this article is an allegation in a show cause process that has not been substantively tested by the Tribunal. Nothing in this article is intended to assert any of those allegations as proven. Where the Tribunal has made findings, the article uses Tribunal language and cites the published judgment.
02How this came to light
Before any tribunal had heard the matter, Site Inspections published a series of on-site investigation videos documenting findings at the affected properties. The regulator was notified. The immediate suspension followed shortly after. The full investigation is below.
Each video records Site Inspections' own observations on site at the time of filming. Site Inspections inspected the work and prepared formal reports for the relevant client(s). The regulator's subsequent action — the immediate suspension and the show cause process — followed shortly after publication and notification. The regulator's allegations remain allegations until tested at the substantive VCAT merits hearing, which is still pending.
03The allegations, grouped
Member D. Cook, who heard the stay application, grouped the 86 allegations into six categories. The grouping is the regulator's case at its highest — not Tribunal findings.
The regulator's release named two specific sites: Ajay Way, Kurunjang — described in the Tribunal judgment as designed for NDIS housing — and Ambrose Street, Emerald, the site at the centre of the electrical safety allegations. A third public-safety allegation in the regulator's release identified failure to include fire safety in the design as required in the building permit.
Mr Little's position, recorded in the Tribunal's reasons, is that on the sprinkler question at the Kurunjang site he had consulted an industry advocacy body's legal department, a registered and experienced building surveyor, and the Australian Building Codes Board's technical advisory line before deferring to the client's election and obtaining a fire engineering report, peer review, and the building surveyor's approval. He has not yet had the opportunity to put those responses on the record in a substantive hearing.
04Timeline
From the regulator's immediate suspension through eighteen months of procedural skirmishing. The substantive merits review is still to come.
05How "immediate suspension" works
The legal architecture that lets the regulator act before a hearing. The provision is short, deliberately broad, and aimed at one thing: protecting the public while the regulatory process runs.
The power that the regulator used on 20 December 2024 is a single sub-section of the Building Act 1993. It does not require notice, a prior hearing, or proof of guilt. It requires the regulator to consider that suspension is in the public interest, pending the formal show cause process.
"The Authority must, by written notice given to a registered building practitioner, immediately suspend the registration of the registered building practitioner if the Authority considers it is in the interests of the public to do so pending the show cause process."
Sub-section (2B) supplies a non-exhaustive list of matters the regulator may consider — building work posing a serious risk to neighbouring properties, building work posing a risk to the health and safety of persons, and a record of multiple adverse disciplinary actions. The Tribunal in the stay decision noted that in Mr Little's matter, sub-paragraph (b) — risk to health and safety of persons — was the most relevant of those considerations.
A practitioner who is immediately suspended can apply to VCAT for review of the immediate suspension under section 186 of the Building Act. They can also seek a stay of the suspension. There is, however, no automatic stay built into the statute. The suspension takes effect on the regulator's notice and remains in place unless and until the Tribunal lifts it.
Because the show cause process can take months, and the regulator's enabling Act says protecting the safety and health of people who use buildings is its primary objective. The Tribunal in the stay decision in Mr Little's matter said the public interest in maintaining building-industry standards "far more important than any financial or emotional hardship" the suspended practitioner experiences in the interim. That is the policy choice Parliament has made — and it is the choice the Tribunal applies on a stay application.
06What VCAT has decided so far — and what's still pending
Three published VCAT decisions now in. A litigation restraint order against the Builder. No substantive merits ruling on either the regulator's disciplinary case or the homeowner case in BP11/2025 — both are still ahead.
VCAT has imposed a litigation restraint order on the Builder under s 11 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 (Vic) — after the Builder conceded his interlocutory applications were pursued "with the object of delaying the proceeding."
Source: MyLinks SDA Pty Ltd v Andrew Little [BP11/2025], Member R Curie, ordered 28 April 2026 — paragraphs V, X.
The disciplinary stream (BPC v Little)
The Building and Plumbing Commission's immediate suspension of the Builder remains in force and now extends until 30 November 2027. Two interlocutory decisions have come out of VCAT to date: in [2025] VCAT 277, the Tribunal refused the Builder's application for a stay of the suspension pending the substantive review — finding the regulator's pre-merits action was within the statutory power. In [2026] VCAT 345 (14 May 2026), the Tribunal dismissed the Builder's procedural applications, which sought to delay or derail the substantive review. The substantive merits hearing on the BPC disciplinary action remains pending; an administrative mention is listed for 30 May 2026.
The Supreme Court refusal
Before the VCAT stay application was heard, the Builder pursued a separate track in the Supreme Court of Victoria. In the week of 20 January 2025, self-represented, he applied for an urgent injunction to have his registration reinstated while he appealed the suspension. Justice Kerri Judd refused the application, ruling he had not "demonstrated a serious question to be tried."
There is a point of legal craft worth pausing on. The phrase "serious question to be tried" is a stay-application term of art and it appears in both the Supreme Court decision and in Member Cook's later VCAT 277 reasons — but to opposite effect. Justice Judd found the threshold was not met in January. Member Cook later found, on a different application and a different record, that there was a serious question to be tried — while still refusing the stay on other grounds. The phrase does not mean either tribunal endorsed the regulator's case or the Builder's defence; it is a standing-style threshold for whether a court will intervene at all.
The practical effect of the Supreme Court refusal was that the Builder's statutory suspension remained in force across both forums while the substantive matters proceeded. The Herald Sun reported that the Builder's "legal actions will return to VCAT and the Supreme Court at a later date" — both tracks remain live.
The civil stream (homeowner proceedings)
In parallel with the BPC matter, multiple homeowner-led proceedings have been on foot at VCAT against the Builder. The first to produce a substantive written decision is MyLinks SDA Pty Ltd v Andrew Little t/as ADL Home Building and Constructions [BP11/2025], decided by Member R Curie on 28 April 2026.
The Owner's claim concerns work on a Class 3 single-storey residential dwelling — specialist disability accommodation. The Builder argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the contract was for a Class 3 building and commercial in character. The Tribunal rejected that argument, finding that the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic) applies to the work notwithstanding its commercial character — relying on the Supreme Court authority in H Building v Owners Corporation [2017] VSC 802 to confirm that an SDA dwelling answers the description of a "home" for the purposes of the DBC Act. This is a materially significant finding for any future SDA homeowner facing the same jurisdictional argument.
On the same day the Tribunal:
- Dismissed the Builder's application to strike out the Owner's Points of Claim — finding a sustainable legal basis for the Owner's case.
- Struck out the Builder's counterclaim as "insufficiently particularised, misconceived… vexatious."
- Set aside the summons the Builder had served on a WorkSafe Victoria employee (with the Builder remaining liable for the witness's fees and allowances).
- Ordered the Builder to pay the Owner's costs of the hearing fixed in the sum of $1,500, by 18 May 2026.
The Tribunal then went further. At paragraph V of the decision, Member Curie recorded being "satisfied that the Builder has made two or more interlocutory applications that meet the statutory character of 'vexatious applications' within the meaning of s 3 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 (Vic)" — "commenced or pursued without reasonable grounds and amounted to an abuse of process."
At paragraph X, the decision records that "the Builder conceded that his interlocutory applications, including the related registry requests, were pursued with the object of delaying the proceeding." That concession is on the record in a signed VCAT decision.
Under s 11 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 (Vic), the Tribunal ordered that the Builder must not, without leave of the Tribunal, make or continue any interlocutory application — including any application for summons. Leave will be granted only on written application supported by affidavit setting out the precise forensic purpose and demonstrating that the proposed step is reasonably necessary for the fair disposition of the issues in dispute. Member Curie has now taken carriage of the proceeding. The substantive hearing in BP11/2025 is listed for 14 July 2026.
What's next
Two tracks of substantive relief now sit ahead. The BPC's disciplinary case against the Builder is still to be heard on the merits at VCAT — the regulator's allegations of 86 alleged factual breaches across 58 grounds remain untested. And in BP11/2025, the homeowner's case against the Builder is listed for substantive hearing on 14 July 2026. Other homeowner proceedings remain on foot.
The two BPC-stream interlocutory decisions are summarised side by side below. The civil-stream decision in BP11/2025 is covered in full above.
1 April 2025 · Member Cook
14 May 2026 · Member Tanner
The Tribunal's wording on the "serious question to be tried" deserves to be quoted directly. It is a stay-application term of art — it does not mean the Tribunal endorsed the regulator's case or Mr Little's defence. It means the matter is not so weak that summary disposal would be appropriate, and that the substantive merits must be heard.
I accept that there is a serious issue to be tried in this proceeding namely, whether Mr Little's ongoing suspension and disqualification is justified, and, if so, for what time period.
As at the date this article was published, the substantive review of the BPC's disciplinary action has not been scheduled. The proceeding is listed for an administrative mention on 30 May 2026, with directions about whether and when Mr Little intends to file responding material on the merits. Separately, the homeowner case in BP11/2025 is listed for substantive hearing on 14 July 2026, with Member R Curie taking carriage and any future interlocutory applications by the Builder requiring leave under the litigation restraint order.
The proposed penalties — which sit underneath all of this — are illustrated below. None of them are final. All remain subject to the substantive review.
07What this case means for homeowners
Three structural protections sit underneath every domestic building project in Victoria — and three practical actions a homeowner can take if they suspect the work is defective or unsafe.
The three structural protections
- The registration system itself. Domestic building work over a threshold dollar amount must be carried out by a registered building practitioner. The regulator's power to suspend a registration — including the immediate suspension power used in this matter — exists because registration is the door that lets someone trade as a builder in Victoria in the first place.
- The Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic). Sets out the rules for major domestic building contracts: written form, deposit caps, progress payments tied to stages, mandatory insurance disclosure, cooling-off rights, and dispute resolution. A non-compliant contract is itself a regulator ground for action.
- Domestic Building Insurance. Compulsory on contracts above the threshold. If a builder dies, disappears, becomes insolvent, or has their registration cancelled, the insurer steps in. Without insurance — or where insurance was never put in place — the homeowner carries the loss directly.
What to do if you suspect defective or unsafe work
- Document everything. Dated photos, written notes, copies of all correspondence, the contract, the building permit, the insurance certificate. The earlier the record starts, the stronger any later claim.
- Get an independent inspection. An independent registered building inspector or specialist can produce a defect report that records what an objective third party observed. The report is the document that turns a suspicion into a position you can act on — with the builder, the regulator, the insurer, or a tribunal.
- Report to the regulator. The Building and Plumbing Commission (BPC, the operational identity of the regulator from 1 July 2025) accepts complaints about registered practitioners. Documented evidence — including independent inspection reports and dated photos — is what moves a complaint from a contested he-said-she-said into something the regulator can act on.
For balance, the Builder's own position on the public record has been that "many of the defects were the fault of subcontractors" (reported by the Herald Sun, 24 January 2025), and that the regulator's allegations are "biased" and "untested." Those positions have not been tested on the merits.
The BP11/2025 decision exposes a structural difficulty that homeowners face when pursuing relief against a builder at VCAT: the Builder in that matter appeared in person, made multiple interlocutory applications — conceded on the record to have been pursued to delay the proceeding — and the homeowner had to bear the cost and time of meeting each of them, represented by solicitor. The Tribunal's litigation restraint order is unusual and significant. It also confirms that a determined homeowner with documented evidence, independent inspection reports, and proper legal representation can push a matter through to substantive hearing — though it may take more than a year to get there. Multiple other homeowner proceedings against the same Builder remain on foot.
Site Inspections runs an independent building inspection and consultancy practice. We do not act for builders. The case discussed in this article involved properties we inspected and reported on for the client — and our published investigation contributed to the matter coming to the regulator's attention.
08How to verify a builder before signing
A four-step check that takes about twenty minutes and protects the only money you've put down so far — your deposit.
The BPC accepts complaints from any consumer who has engaged a registered builder. Complaints can be made at bpc.vic.gov.au. For matters involving domestic building insurance claims under the Building and Plumbing Commission Insurance (Domestic Builders) Ministerial Order, claim determinations can be challenged at VCAT under the Building Act review jurisdiction. For matters involving occupational health and safety on site, WorkSafe Victoria is the relevant regulator and accepts complaints separately at worksafe.vic.gov.au.
09Sources
-
MyLinks SDA Pty Ltd v Andrew Little t/as ADL Home Building and Constructions [BP11/2025]
Our Blog
YOUR GO-TO RESOURCE HUB
Whether you’re on the hunt or have already settled in, we’ll arm you with the know-how and confidence to keep your home safe and compliant. With our guidance, you can make informed decisions and steer clear of common pitfalls.
