Camillos v Commissioner for Fair Trading

CITATION:	Camillos v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2005] NSWADT 216
DIVISION:	Legal Services Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Angelo George Camillos RESPONDENT Commissioner for Fair Trading
FILE NUMBER:	052024
HEARING DATES:	22/08/2005
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	08/22/2005
DATE OF DECISION:	09/22/2005
BEFORE:	Karpin A - ADCJ (Deputy President); Curraey P - Non Judicial Member
APPLICATION:	Conveyancer - grant of licence
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Conveyancers Licensing Act 1995
CASES CITED:
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT V Griswold, solicitor
ORDERS:	Decision under review affirmed

1 The Applicant, Angelo George Camillos, has applied to the Tribunal for a review of a decision made on the 9 March 2005, by Michael Reid, Manager Licensing Department in the Office of Fair Trading. That decision was an Internal Review, conducted pursuant to section 53 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997, following a decision by an administrator to refuse the Applicant a licence pursuant to the Conveyancers Licensing Act 1995.

2 Mr. Reid overturned that decision and made orders granting a licence upon the following conditions:

• The Application for a full licence without a condition requiring supervision is refused on the basis that the evidence provided did not satisfy the delegate of the Commissioner that the applicant met the requirements for the grant of a licence under the Conveyancers Licensing Act 1995. In particular the applicant failed to satisfy the delegate of the Commissioner that he complied with Section 7(1) (b).
• The application for a full licence is granted subject to a condition that conveyancing work only be carried out under the supervision of a licensed conveyancer whose licence is not subject to such a condition, or a solicitor whose practising certificate is not subject to such a condition will be granted on payment of the outstanding fee and the provision of a copy of the appropriate professional indemnity insurance.

The reasons for this decision were contained in a 6 page document appended to the orders. From that decision the Applicant seeks a review by the Tribunal.

3 On hearing before the Tribunal, the Applicant appeared for himself. The respondent was represented by a solicitor. Mr. Reid was called by the Respondent and gave brief evidence in chief, and dealt with questions from the Applicant and the Tribunal. Both the Applicant and the solicitor for the Respondent provided written submissions.

4 The Applicants reasons for seeking a review are:

1. To enable him to gain work.

2. The Administrator has misinterpreted the method of implementation of section 7 of the Conveyancers Licensing Act 1995

3. The Administrator has interpreted section 11 of the Conveyancers Licensing Act to mean that conditions “must” be applied, rather than “may” be applied.

4. The Conveyancers Licensing Order 1999 Para. 4(3) has been taken to mean that the period cannot be reduced to zero.

5 Mr. Camillos attached a letter to his initial application in which he set out the bases upon which he challenged Mr. Reid’s decision.

6 The Applicant takes issue with Mr.…