Arasi and Real Estate And Business Agents Supervisory Board - [2010] WASAT 83

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: VOCATIONAL REGULATION

ACT: REAL ESTATE AND BUSINESS AGENTS ACT 1978 (WA)

CITATION: ARASI and REAL ESTATE AND BUSINESS AGENTS SUPERVISORY BOARD [2010] WASAT 83

MEMBER: JUDGE J PRITCHARD (DEPUTY PRESIDENT)
MR T CAREY (MEMBER)
MR G POTTER (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)

HEARD: 5 MARCH 2009

DELIVERED : 11 JUNE 2010

FILE NO/S: VR 220 of 2009

BETWEEN: SHARON MARIA ARASI
Applicant
AND
REAL ESTATE AND BUSINESS AGENTS SUPERVISORY BOARD
Respondent

Catchwords:

Vocational regulation Real estate and business agent Fit and proper Lack of experience Insufficient understanding of duties and obligations upon agents Act does not permit grant of a conditional licence under s 34(2) to limit licence holder to particular types of transactions only

Legislation:

Real Estate and Business Agents Act 1978 (WA), s 4, s 23(1), s 24, s 26, s 27, s 27(1), s 27(1)(b), s 27(1)(d), s 27(2), s 30(2), s 30(2)(a), s 31, s 31(1), s 31(2), s 31(3), s 34, s 34(2), s 44(1), s 47(1), s 47(2), s 48(4), s 50(2), s 51, s 51(1), s 55, s 55(1), Pt 3, Sch cl 1(a), cl 2(a), cl 2
Real Estate and Business Agents (General) Regulations 1979 (WA), reg 6A
State Administrative Tribunal 2004 (WA), s 27(1)

Result:

Decision of the Board affirmed, application for review dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Self-represented
Respondent: Ms R Lee (Representative)

Solicitors:

Applicant: Self-represented
Respondent: Real Estate and Business Agents Supervisory Board

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Peter Raymond James v Real Estate and Business Agents Supervisory Board (unreported, District Court of Western Australia, 27 October 1989)

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

Ms Arasi made an application for a licence to be a real estate agent and business agent to the Real Estate and Business Agents Supervisory Board, under the Real Estate and Business Agents Act 1978 (WA). The Board refused Ms Arasi's application for a licence, and Ms Arasi sought review of the Board's decision by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal considered whether it was satisfied that Ms Arasi met each of the criteria for the grant of a licence set out in s 27(1) of the Act, including whether Ms Arasi was a person of good character and repute, whether she was a 'fit and proper' person to hold a licence, and whether she understood fully the duties and obligations imposed upon agents by the Act. The Board argued that Ms Arasi did not meet any or all of the criteria, while Ms Arasi submitted that she did meet all of the criteria.
The Tribunal found that Ms Arasi did not have sufficient practical experience to carry on the business of an agent satisfactorily and, on that basis, was unable to qualify as a fit and proper person under the Act. Additionally, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Ms Arasi fully understood the duties and obligations imposed on agents under the Act. The Tribunal was therefore not satisfied that Ms Arasi met the criteria for the grant of a licence set out in the Act.
The Tribunal also considered a submission from Ms Arasi that the deficiency in her experience in real estate transactions generally could be overcome if she were granted a licence on the condition that she undertook property management transactions only. The Tribunal found that s 34(2) of the Act did not permit the imposition of conditions limiting a licence holder to engage in particular types of real estate transactions only.
The Tribunal determined that the correct and preferable decision was to refuse Ms Arasi's application for a licence, and therefore dismissed her application for review and affirmed the Board's decision.

Introduction

On 25 May 2009, Ms Arasi applied to the Real Estate and Business Agents Supervisory Board (Board) for a licence to be a real estate agent and business agent (licence) under s 27(1) of the Real Estate and Business Agents Act 1978 (WA) (REBA Act) (the application). The REBA Act prohibits a person from carrying on business as a real estate agent or business agent or both unless that person holds a licence under the REBA Act and a current triennial certificate in respect of the licence: s 26 of the REBA Act.
On 10 November 2009, the Board published its reasons for decision in which it refused the application.
Ms Arasi seeks a review by the Tribunal of the Board’s decision to refuse the application, pursuant to s 23(1) of the REBA Act. The hearing before us was a hearing de novo, the purpose of which was to reach the correct and preferable decision on the question whether Ms Arasi should be granted a licence under s 27(1) of the REBA Act.
There are a number of criteria in s 27(1) for the grant of a licence as a real estate agent and business agent (agent). These include that the Board is satisfied that the applicant is a person of good character and repute, and a ‘fit and proper’ person to hold a licence (s 27(1)(b)), and that the Board is satisfied that the applicant understands fully the duties and obligations imposed by the REBA Act on agents (s 27(1)(d)). The criterion that an applicant be 'fit and proper' includes being qualified in accordance with criteria set out in the Schedule to the REBA Act. We have referred to those qualifications below.
At the hearing of the review, the Board submitted that Ms Arasi did not meet any or all of these criteria for the grant of a licence. Ms Arasi submitted that she met each of these criteria. For the reasons outlined below, we reached conclusions adverse to Ms Arasi on the adequacy of her experience, and on her understanding of the duties and obligations of agents under the REBA Act. Accordingly, it is not necessary for us to deal with the question whether she is a person of good character and repute for the purposes of s 27(1)(b) of the REBA Act.
One of the issues in the hearing concerned whether the Board should have granted Ms Arasi a licence on the condition that she work only as a property manager, to reflect the limited nature of her experience in that area prior to making the application. This raised the question whether the Board had the power to grant a licence subject to a condition of this kind.
These reasons for decision deal with the following matters:
1.Factual background;
2.Whether Ms Arasi is a fit and proper person experience requirements;
3.Whether Ms Arasi understands fully the duties and obligations imposed by the REBA Act on agents;
4.Whether Ms Arasi should be granted a licence on the condition that she work only as a property manager;
5.Conclusion and orders.

Factual background

The parties filed a large number of documents in support of their respective positions and Ms Arasi gave evidence and was crossexamined by counsel for the Board. Ms Arasi also filed witness statements from a number of other witnesses, whom the Board did not seek to crossexamine. Other than in so far as we refer below to factual issues which were in dispute between the parties, most of the facts in relation to this matter were established by the documents and were not disputed.
Ms Arasi has never, individually or in any other capacity, held a licence. She has however been active within the real estate industry since 2001, primarily in property management, and mainly, but not entirely, working for ASAP Asset Growth (ASAP), a partnership comprising herself and her husband, Mr Peter Arasi.
Ms Arasi was the holder of a certificate of registration as a real estate and business sales representative between 6 August 2001 and 5 August 2004, and again between 18 July 2006 and 17 July 2009. The earlier certificate was not renewed upon its expiry. According to Ms Arasi, she applied for a renewal of her certificate on or about 13 July 2004, but her renewal application was not processed. The Board did not concede that any renewal application was made at that time. In any event, it is clear that Ms Arasi did not hold a certificate as a real estate sales representative for the period between 6 August 2004 and 17 July 2006.
At the time of the expiry of the later certificate, Ms Arasi made an application to renew that certificate. A formal hearing, in which the Registrar of the Board had intervened, was pending at the time we dealt with the present application.
Each certificate of registration held by Ms Arasi was expressed as being subject to the condition that it be used 'for property management transactions only'. Ms Arasi asserted that she was under the misapprehension that all she required to do to enable her to engage in property management was to obtain registration as a real estate and business sales representative pursuant to s 47(1) of the REBA Act. That was not the case.

Whether Ms Arasi is a fit and proper person experience requirements

Those parts of the Schedule to the REBA Act which are referred to in s 27(2) of the REBA Act, and which are relevant for the purposes of this application, are:

Schedule
Qualifications for grant of licence (s 27)
1.A person
(a)who has passed, subject to approved exemptions, the prescribed examinations relating to the carrying on and conduct of the business of an agent and the duties and liabilities of an agent and has had sufficient practical experience in negotiating transactions to enable him to carry on the business of an agent satisfactorily;
…

is, subject to this Act, qualified for the grant of a licence.
2.For the purposes of clause 1(a), but without limiting the generality of the provision in that paragraph in respect of practical experience, a person has had sufficient practical experience in negotiating transactions if he has, during a period of 2 years immediately preceding his application for a licence
(a)lawfully and satisfactorily performed the functions of a sales representative on behalf of a person who lawfully carried out the functions of an agent, during that period or on behalf of a firm which did so; or
(b)lawfully and satisfactorily performed the functions of a business agent on his own behalf or on behalf of a firm, or a body corporate, which lawfully carried on the business of a business agent during that period.

…

We were provided with full details of Ms Arasi's experience in real estate. Ms Arasi informed us that prior to 2001, when she obtained her real estate and business sales representative certificate, she had managed investment properties for members of her family for almost 20 years. This continued once she had received her certificate.
Ms Arasi gave evidence that after receiving her certificate, she commenced managing properties, in partnership with her husband, under the ASAP banner. At that time, she and her husband were investing personally in stratatitled properties. She undertook a strata management course, and managed properties for other proprietors in the strata schemes in which she had an interest. Initially, this involved collecting rent and bond money for between one and eight properties. By 2009, the number of properties which Ms Arasi was managing had grown to some 37.
In 2006 and 2007, in addition to her personal property management activities for ASAP, Ms Arasi worked for a licensed real estate agent, Richardson & Wrench, Victoria Park. The basis upon which this occurred was disputed before us. The Board said that Ms Arasi was employed by Richardson & Wrench between January 2006 and May 2007, and relies upon a letter to that effect from Ms Randall of Richardson & Wrench which accompanied the applicant's licence application. Ms Arasi's case is that she was not employed by Richardson & Wrench, at least in the sense of being paid, but that she was helping a friend (Ms Randall) by conducting property management transactions after Ms Randall had moved to Sydney. She said she remained under the supervision of Ms Randall, who returned to Perth on a regular basis.
Ms Arasi said that her work with Richardson & Wrench involved 'merely facilitating the transfer of documents'. She compared her functions to those of unregistered assistant property managers, and even receptionists, who collect and receipt rents, carry out inspections and produce periodic inspection and property condition reports. She did not recall signing documents such as authorities, leases, bond lodgements or bond disposals, although she did say that she had prepared bond disposal forms. She said that she was not 'in bona fide control of the trust accounts'.
It is fair to say that a resume prepared by Ms Arasi for the purposes of her licence application presented a less equivocal account of the scope of her property management role at Richardson & Wrench. According to her resume, Ms Arasi coordinated the property management of the business, which included meeting and negotiating with clients, property inspections, property condition report writing, rental receipting, arrears management and all aspects of property management. She also claimed to have found the purchaser of the business at the time that Richardson & Wrench ceased operation in July 2006, organised signing of authorities and supplied the purchaser with a detailed file at handover, and liaised with owners who chose to selfmanage and handed keys and documents over to them. This was completed in May 2007.
Ms Arasi was employed as a property manager by Platinum Holdings Pty Ltd trading as Lesmurdie Real Estate and Capital Residential (Lesmurdie RE) from 17 July 2006 to 27 February 2008. She was employed parttime, three days per week. She also filled in for another parttime property manager when she took holidays (four weeks per year). Ms Arasi calculated that during her time at Lesmurdie RE, she acquired the equivalent of 1.395 years of fulltime experience as a property manager. She said that she was managing in the region of 80 to 100 properties for Lesmurdie RE, as well as at least 20 of her own under the ASAP banner.
After resigning from Lesmurdie RE at the end of February 2008, Ms Arasi continued with her property management portfolio.
Clause 2(a) of the Schedule to the REBA Act deems a person to have had the practical experience required under cl 1(a) of the Schedule if the person has lawfully and satisfactorily performed the functions of a real estate sales representative on behalf of an agent during a period of two years immediately preceding their application for a licence as an agent. Ms Arasi is unable to fit her case within this deeming provision found in cl 2(a) of the Schedule because in the two years prior to 25 May 2009, Ms Arasi was not lawfully and satisfactorily performing the functions of a sales representative on behalf of an agent.
Accordingly, it was necessary for us to determine whether or not Ms Arasi 'has had sufficient practical experience in negotiating transactions to enable (her) to carry on the business of an agent satisfactorily'.
Apart from Ms Arasi's experience in property management, she has very limited experience in conducting property transactions. She and her husband bought and sold some strata-titled properties in the early 2000s. She also claimed to have been involved in the sale of the rent rolls of Richardson & Wrench when it was being wound up.
As was conceded by the Board, a person who has only property management experience may still have sufficient practical experience to be fit and proper to carry on the business of an agent. Ultimately it is necessary to assess whether such a person has demonstrated that he or she has the necessary skills to operate across the full range of real estate transactions. Obviously, this is more likely to be the case when an applicant has experience in all areas. In Ms Arasi's case we are not satisfied that she has the skills to operate across the full range of transactions because of her extremely limited experience in conducting property transactions and because much of her property management work was conducted without the supervision of an agent.
The Act places importance on the supervision of sales representatives by licensed agents. The experience upon which Ms Arasi relies was wholly unsupervised by any licensed agent, with the possible exception of her time with Richardson & Wrench and Lesmurdie RE. In relation to the former, Ms Arasi admitted that she was helping out her friend, Ms Randall, at a time when Ms Randall had moved interstate. As we have noted above, Ms Arasi’s evidence was that her role at Richardson & Wrench was limited to facilitating the transfer of documents. Accordingly, we are unable to accept that, to the extent that supervision of her activities was required, adequate supervision was provided for much of that period.
In relation to the period of her part time employment with Lesmurdie RE, in an interview with the Board’s officers on 14 August 2009, Ms Arasi stated the property management arm was run by the part-time property managers (including Ms Arasi), and that she did not think that anybody checked her work.
Having regard to all the evidence, particularly that relating to Ms Arasi’s experience (or more particularly, lack of experience) in sales transactions and her largely unsupervised property management activities, we are not satisfied that Ms Arasi has the practical experience which is required by cl 1(a) of the Schedule to the REBA Act. It was apparent that Ms Arasi would require further experience in negotiating the sale and purchase of real estate, and a further period of properly supervised property management, in order to demonstrate an ability to carry on the business of an agent satisfactorily.

Whether Ms Arasi understands fully the duties and obligations imposed by the REBA Act on agents

The Board’s case was that Ms Arasi's lack of the understanding required of an agent under the REBA Act was evident from two primary considerations.
First, the Board pointed to the fact that Ms Arasi conducted real estate transactions in the nature of property management without being employed by a licensed agent and without being licensed herself as an agent. The contention spans the entire period from 2001 until 30 November 2009 save for her periods of employment by a licensed agent. Specifically this allegation applies to those periods when Ms Arasi was not employed by a licensed agent between 5 August 2004 and 17 July 2006. It also applies to her employment by Lesmurdie RE from 17 July 2006 until 27 February 2008. It arguably applies to the time spent with Richardson & Wrench between January 2006 and May 2007.
It is clear that Ms Arasi considered that certification as a real estate sales representative, limited to property management transactions, entitled her to act as a property manager in respect of properties which were not owned by her or her family. Ms Arasi was quite candid in admitting her lack of understanding of the REBA Act right throughout the period. This was despite the fact that she made a statutory declaration in 2001, in support of her application for a certificate as a sales representative, to the opposite effect.
Ms Arasi criticised a REIWA property management course which she undertook prior to being granted a certificate as a sales representative in 2001 on the grounds that students should have been informed that the course did not cover the entirety of the REBA Act and that the REBA Act was not made available to students to study. Ms Arasi accepted that she did not acquire a copy of the REBA Act until August 2008, following a visit to her residence by inspectors of the Board to execute a search warrant. On that occasion, Ms Arasi informed the Board’s inspectors that she believed she was entitled to conduct real estate transactions on the basis of her certificate of registration as a real estate sales representative, but was told this was incorrect. According to Ms Arasi, on subsequently reading the REBA Act, she was 'stunned' to learn that she was not qualified to operate a property management business under that Act.

Ms Arasi voluntarily attended an interview with officers of the Board on 27 August 2008, which she regarded as an opportunity to speak to the Board about her options. It was asserted by the Board, and denied by Ms Arasi, that at the conclusion of that interview it was suggested to Ms Arasi that she should cease the management of properties owned by others.
It is unnecessary for us to resolve this issue because on 17 February 2009, the Board advised Ms Arasi, by letter, that her business 'must immediately cease conducting real estate transactions within the State, and provide the Board written advice as to what measures have been taken to ensure that ASAP Asset Growth complies with the Act'. Notwithstanding the receipt of this letter, Ms Arasi continued to operate the property management business.
On 14 July 2009, the Board made an application to the Tribunal (VR 101 of 2009) to appoint a supervisor to ASAP. On 10 November 2009, by consent, an order was made by the Tribunal, effective from 30 November 2009, suspending Ms Arasi and her husband from carrying on business as real estate agents and authorising the Board to appoint a supervisor to ASAP.
Ms Arasi sought to explain her continued conduct of the property management business until the order of 30 November 2009 came into effect. She said that as at August 2008, she had no clear understanding of the fact that she needed to cease trading. She said she did not receive the Board's letter dated 17 February 2009 until she returned from a trip to New Zealand on 1 March 2009. By that time, she had commenced a Diploma of Property Real Estate, in satisfaction of the educational requirements for a licence under the REBA Act, which she completed in February 2009. Her response to the Board's letter was to request that the Board conduct an interview with Mr Arasi prior to any cessation of trade. At the hearing before us, Ms Arasi said that it would have been better for her to have requested 'an extension', which we take to mean an authorisation from the Board that ASAP could continue trading, although it is far from clear on what basis the Board could have provided such an authorization, given Ms Arasi as not licensed as an agent.
Ms Arasi also told us that she attempted to hire a licensee - that is, to have a licensed agent assume control of the ASAP business by advertising in the newspaper. She received 13 expressions of interest, but only one was prepared to apply for a triennial certificate in ASAP's name, and that application did not proceed.
Ms Arasi also said that she was hoping the Board would 'come back to her' with alternatives to enable her business to continue. It was very clear that Ms Arasi regarded her conduct as complying with the spirit of the REBA Act, albeit not with its licensing requirements. Ms Arasi also alleged that in other communications with her, including in the course of proceedings before the Tribunal, the Board failed to insist that she refrain from continuing to act in property management on behalf of others.
In our view, the evidence demonstrated that Ms Arasi was willing to put her ability to earn an income before the need to comply with the requirements of the REBA Act.
The second consideration to which the Board pointed to demonstrate Ms Arasi's lack of the understanding required of an agent under the REBA Act was the fact that Ms Arasi conducted real estate transactions at a time when she did not hold a certificate as a sales representative under the REBA Act. As we have said, the parties were in dispute as to Ms Arasi's contention that she applied on or about 13 July 2004 to renew the certificate which she had been granted in 2001. There is no dispute, however, that a further certificate was not issued at that stage, nor that Ms Arasi did not follow the matter up with the Board. According to Ms Arasi's evidence, it was only in late May 2006, when contacted by a member of the Board, that she realised that she did not actually hold a current certificate. This resulted in her application for a certificate on 17 July 2006, which was granted the next day.
Under the REBA Act the onus is on persons who hold themselves out as being licensed or certificated to ensure that they hold a current licence or certificate. The evidence demonstrates either a large measure of ignorance, or a laxity in approach, on Ms Arasi's part to the certification requirements of the REBA Act.
The Board relied on a number of other, less significant, allegations to demonstrate Ms Arasi's lack of understanding of the REBA Act, including her alleged failure to comply with the requirements of s 51 and s 55 of the REBA Act concerning the giving of notices of employment by an agent and the requirement to be employed at any one time by one agent only, and the fact that Ms Arasi signed the declaration in 2001 to the effect that she understood fully the duties and obligations imposed by the REBA Act on sales representatives, when in fact she clearly had no such understanding. However, in view of our conclusions in relation to the Board’s primary allegations in support of this contention, it is unnecessary for us to deal with these additional allegations.
Notwithstanding Ms Arasi's recent completion of a real estate diploma course, the evidence to which we have referred suggests that Ms Arasi has not demonstrated that she understands fully the duties and obligations upon on agents under the REBA Act.

Whether Ms Arasi should be granted a licence on the condition that she work only as a property manager

As we have noted above, Ms Arasi's certificate of registration as a real estate sales representative was subject to a condition that she undertake 'property management transactions only'. In the present context, Ms Arasi submitted in the alternative to her application for a licence under s 27 that she be granted a licence on the condition that she undertake property management transactions only. She made this submission as a means of overcoming the deficiency in her experience in real estate transactions generally.
This submission was based on the Board's power to impose special conditions on licences under s 34(2) of the REBA Act, which provides that '[t]he Board may grant a licence or grant or renew a triennial certificate subject to such special conditions as it thinks fit'.
The Board submitted that s 34(2) did not permit the Board to grant a licence as an agent subject to a condition that the agent engage only in a particular type of work falling under the umbrella of real estate transactions or business sales transactions under the REBA Act. We accept that submission.
Section 34(2) on its face confers a broad power to impose such 'special conditions' as the Board thinks fit on the grant of a licence. However, the scope of that discretion must be construed within the statutory context in which s 34(2) appears. The features of that statutory context include:
•Section 34(2) does not expressly permit the Board to grant a partial licence. Rather, it permits the Board to grant 'a licence', but then to impose conditions on that grant.
•The Board has the power, on its being satisfied of the requirements in s 27(1) of the REBA Act, to grant a licence. Indeed, under s 27(1) of the REBA Act, a person who applies to the Board for a licence, and satisfies the Board of the matters referred to in s 27(1), 'shall be granted a licence'.
•A licence entitles the licensee who is also the holder of a triennial certificate to carry on business as a real estate agent or a business agent or both: s 26 of the REBA Act.
•A licensed agent is permitted to act as an agent in respect of the whole range of 'real estate transactions' (as that expression is defined in s 4 of the REBA Act). Real estate transactions extend to purchases and sales of real estate as well as to property management transactions.
In our view, it is not open to the Board to effectively derogate from the licence which, in the event of its being satisfied of the requirements under s 27(1), it is required to grant. Relevantly, that is a licence to carry on all of the functions of an agent.
In our view, s 34 of the REBA Act does not permit the imposition of conditions which limit the licence holder to engaging in particular types of real estate transactions from the entirety of the real estate transactions in which an agent under the REBA Act may engage.
In support of her submission that s 34(2) did permit the grant of a licence on the condition that the agent conduct only property management, Ms Arasi relied on the decision of Clark J in Peter Raymond James v Real Estate and Business Agents Supervisory Board (unreported, District Court of Western Australia, 27 October 1989) (James). That decision concerned an appeal against a decision by the Board to refuse to grant a licence to Mr James, on the basis that he had failed to demonstrate the practical experience required in order to be a fit and proper person under s 27 of the REBA Act.
According to his Honour’s reasons for decision, Mr James made a submission that he had asked the Board to grant him a licence restricted to property management. The Board's counsel submitted that such a condition would be invalid. However, his Honour concluded that Mr James should have been granted a conditional licence. His Honour concluded (at [8]) that 's 27 read with s 34 clearly contemplates' conditional licences. His Honour's reasons do not indicate the extent of the submissions made before his Honour in relation to the construction of s 34(2), but it is far from apparent that his Honour had the benefit of receiving detailed submissions from both parties in relation to the proper construction of s 34(2). For the reasons we have given, we are respectfully unable to agree with his Honour's conclusion in relation to s 34(2).
The Board drew to our attention that reg 6A of the Real Estate and Business Agents (General) Regulations 1979 (WA) includes as a prescribed qualification for sales representatives for the purposes of s 47(2) of the REBA Act, those relevant to 'an application for registration as a sales representative with a condition restricting the registrant to property management transactions only'. That appears to contemplate that the power of the Board under s 50(2) of the REBA Act, which is in almost identical terms to s 34(2) of the REBA Act, permits the grant of a certificate which limits a real estate sales representative to carrying out property management transactions only. It is not necessary for us, in the present context, to determine the scope of s 50(2) or to advance any view on the validity of reg 6A.

Conclusion and orders

Ms Arasi has failed to satisfy us that she has either sufficient practical experience to carry on the business of an agent satisfactorily or a full understanding of the duties and obligations imposed on agents. We are also not persuaded that s 34(2) permits the grant of a licence subject to a condition that the holder of the licence engage in property management only. Given these findings, and our conclusion in relation to the construction of s 34(2), the correct and preferable decision is that Ms Arasi's application for a licence should be refused.
We make the following orders:
1.The application for review is dismissed.
2.The decision of the respondent dated 10 November 2009 to refuse to grant to the applicant a licence as an agent, is affirmed.
I certify that this and the preceding [58] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
JUDGE J PRITCHARD, DEPUTY PRESIDENT