Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Flood - [2010] SADC 118

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(District Court Administrative and Disciplinary Division)
COMMISSIONER FOR CONSUMER AFFAIRS v FLOOD
[2010] SADC 118
Judgment of His Honour Judge Chivell
3 September 2010
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES - CONVEYANCERS - DUTIES TO CLIENTS
Respondent a registered conveyancer. Complaint alleging proper cause exists for disciplinary action on the basis that respondent failed to declare his interest in three properties whilst acting on behalf of vendor and purchaser.
Held: Proper cause exists for disciplinary action.
Conveyancers Act 1994 ss 45, 49(1)(a); Land and Business (Sale and Conveyancing) Act 1994 s 23(2); Land and Business (Sale and Conveyancing) Regulations 1995 regs 18, 19, referred to.
Spector v Ageda [1973] Ch 30; QGC Pty Ltd v Bygrave [2010] FCA 659; Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Sollars (2001) 79 SASR 145; New South Wales Bar Association v Evatt (1968) 117 CLR 177; Clyne v New South Wales Bar Association (1960) 104 CLR 186, considered.

COMMISSIONER FOR CONSUMER AFFAIRS v FLOOD
[2010] SADC 118

In a complaint filed on 6 August 2009, the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs asserts that there is proper cause for disciplinary action against Mr Flood within the meaning of s 45 of the Conveyancers Act 1994.
In summary, the Commissioner alleges that Mr Flood acted unlawfully in relation to:
·the purchase by FEDS Nominees Pty Ltd of a property situated at 121 and 123 Commercial Street West, Mount Gambier in about November of 1999;
·the purchase by FEDS Nominees Pty Ltd of a property situated at 117 Commercial Street West, Mount Gambier in about September 2001;
·the purchase by Engler Enterprises Pty Ltd, Mirkwood Nominees Pty Ltd, GB and TI Somerfield Pty Ltd, Trupa Pty Ltd and Dylmatty Pty Ltd of a property situated at 155 Penola Road, Mount Gambier in about May 2006.
Further, the Commissioner alleges that Mr Flood acted negligently in relation to the Penola Road property mentioned above.
There is no dispute that at the relevant times, Mr Flood was a director of FEDS Nominees Pty Ltd and Mirkwood Nominees Pty Ltd, and that he acted as conveyancer for both the vendors and the purchasers in relation to each of the properties concerned.
The allegation of unlawful conduct relates to breaches of Regulation 18 of the Land and Business (Sale and Conveyancing) Regulations 1995. Regulation 18 states:
18 (1)If, in the course of acting for both parties to a transaction, the conveyancer becomes subject to a conflict of interest in relation to the transaction, the conveyancer must notify both parties in writing and cease to act in the matter.
Penalty: Division 7 fine.
(2)However, if both parties agree in writing that the conveyancer may continue to act for one of them, the conveyancer may continue to act for that party.
Regulation 19 defines a conflict of interest. For the purpose of these proceedings, the relevant part of that definition is as follows:
(19)For the purposes of this Part, a conveyancer is subject to a conflict of interest in relation to a transaction if—
(a)-
(b) the conveyancer has a personal or pecuniary interest in the transaction arising otherwise than from the conveyancer's services as a conveyancer in respect of the transaction.
There is no dispute that Mr Flood breached that regulation. He had a pecuniary interest in each transaction in the sense that he was a director and shareholder in a company that was either the purchaser, or a joint purchaser of the property in question which arose other than from his services as a conveyancer.
Mr Flood has been registered as a conveyancer since 1 June 1995. Prior to that, from 6 May 1982 he was the holder of a Land Broker’s Licence.
Count 1
On 10 December 1999 the property situated at 121 and 123 Commercial Street West, Mount Gambier, was transferred by Neville Lloyd Bright and Heather Joy Bright to FEDS Nominees Pty Ltd. The settlement date was 15 December 1999. Mr Flood acted as conveyancer for the vendors as well as for the purchaser.
The Memorandum of Transfer discloses that the Common Seal of FEDS Nominees Pty Ltd was affixed to the transfer in the presence of Mr Engler, one of Mr Flood’s co-directors of the company.[1]
[1] Book of Documents p 229
Mr Flood gave notice to the vendors that he was also acting for the purchaser in relation to the property. The notice states:
1. Please note that:
I Bernie I Flood, Registered Conveyancer of 8b Helen Street, Mount Gambier 5290 have been requested to act for FEDS Nominees Pty. Ltd. Of 233 Commercial Street West, Mount Gambier 5290 who are a party to the above transaction in respect of which I act also on your behalf.
2.In the event of a conflict of interest arising, I am bound to cease to act for you and my other client involved in the transaction unless you and my other client agree in writing that I may continue to act for you or for my other client.[2]
[2] Book of Documents p 212
The document is not dated, nor is it signed by Mr Flood. Mr and Mrs Bright have signed the document beneath the words:-
We Neville Lloyd Bright and Heather Joy Bright acknowledge that we have read and understood the above advice.
That document does not give notice to the vendors that Mr Flood had a pecuniary interest in the transaction. It was not asserted, and nor could it have been asserted, that the acknowledgement by the vendors related to anything more than the fact that they had been given notice that Mr Flood was acting for both parties.
The clear import of Regulation 18(i) is that the parties must be given written notice of the conflict of interest, and must agree in writing that the conveyancer may continue to act for one of them (not both), otherwise the conveyancer must cease to act in the matter. In failing to do so, Mr Flood acted unlawfully.
In his interview with the Complainants Officers, Mr Flood displayed a complete ignorance of his obligations under the Act.
He said:
…. don’t understand. I mean I, I can’t see that, that it’s er, with a property that a person seeks an agent to sell a property at that price, they get the price, I make sure they get their money on time, I can’t see where my conflict, where I do have a , a conflict with them. If a conflict arose, as in, we weren’t going to settle or there was going to be a delay or some matter that way er, I would suggest, you know, then, then I could say, well perhaps then there’s a conflict has arisen but I can’t see that there’s a conflict.
…. But I, I, I know what you’re saying but I disagree because I believe my job as a conveyancer is to do my job as a conveyancer and I do that absolutely thoroughly. If I said, if there had of been a delay the Brights wouldn’t suffer financially in any way if I was er, um, to act er, for them. I mean their, their concern is they sell their place, they’ve got a price put on their play, place er, I never put the price on there, they, no I did, they wanted to sell it and they, I don’t know how long it took them to sell, they say 100, whatever it was, the price and we settled. I got it done on time. I would have thought I did a good job, yep.
There is no allegation that Mr Flood actually caused a detriment to Mr and Mrs Bright in the transaction. But it is no answer to the charge to assert that in the event of a difficulty arising, he would have done the right thing. The law with relation to conflict of interest exists in order to prevent that situation arising in the first place.
As Megarry J said in Spector v Ageda[3] in the case of a solicitor and a client:-
The solicitor must be remarkable indeed if he can feel assured of holding the scales evenly between himself and his client. Even if in fact he can and does, to demonstrate to conviction that he has done so will usually be beyond possibility in a case where anything to his client’s detriment has occurred. No only must his duty be discharged, but it must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to have been discharged. I abstain from any categorical negative: the circumstances of life are of such infinite variety. But I can at least say that in all ordinary circumstances a solicitor ought to refuse to act for a person in a transaction to which the solicitor is himself a party with an adverse interest and even if he is pressed to act after this refusal, he should persist in that refusal.
[3] [1973] Ch 30 at 47
See also QGC Pty Ltd v Bygrave[4]
[4] [2010] FCA 659
A registered conveyancer should not have divided loyalties. When the unexpected does happen, his duties remain clear. It is very surprising that a man with Mr Flood’s experience did not understand that, at least at the time of the interview in March 2009.
Mr Henchliffe, counsel for Mr Flood, submitted that his client was aware of the concept of conflict of interest as outlined in Regulation 19(a) outlined above. However, he asserted that his client was not aware of what he called the “expanded definition” in Regulation 19(b). To repeat, that states:
(b)the conveyancer has a personal or pecuniary interest in the transaction arising otherwise than from the conveyancer's services as a conveyancer in respect of the transaction.
Quite frankly, I do not see this submission as being in any way mitigatory. Having a personal or pecuniary interest in the transaction is just one, and is probably the most obvious example of a conflict of interest as it is generally described in Regulation 19(a). A conflict of interest arises where the duty owed by the conveyancer to one party of the transaction conflicts with the duties owed by the conveyancer to the other party. It should have been perfectly obvious to Mr Flood, that his duty to the vendors in relation to this transaction was in conflict with his interest in the purchaser of the property, namely FEDS Nominees Pty Ltd.
Mr Henchliffe told me that FEDS Nominees Pty Ltd commenced as a property investment venture between a group of friends, and takes its name from the first letter of each surname, namely Flood, Engler, Dempsey and Summerfield.
The original partner was Mr Patrick Dempsey, an accountant. His brother Peter Dempsey became involved later. He was a real estate salesman.
Mr Henchliffe submitted, and I accept, that Mr Flood took no active part in the purchase of any of these properties and in particular the negotiation of the purchase price.
In relation to this count, the vendors were personally known to Mr Flood. The sale was negotiated by their agent who had no financial interest in the purchasing company. Mr Henchliffe told me that Mr Flood’s instructions are that because the vendors were known to him, he would have told them of his financial interest in the purchasing company because it would have been natural for him to do so.
During the interview with the complainant investigations, Mr Flood was asked:
MR WALL: Right, well back, so back at that time did you advise the Brights that you, your company was involved in the purchase of the property?
MR FLOOD: Really can’t remember but I’m sure I would have. Sure I would have. Sure they’d know. Certainly no reason for me not to tell them, I mean I know them personally, knew them personally anyway so um, yep, yep, I did because they’ve signed the thing acknowledging I was acting for both parties.
MR WALL: Okay, yes.
MR FLOOD: So I discussed it with them. I said, look I’m, I’m er, …
MR WALL: Well were they aware that your, you, you had some involvement in the purchase of it?
MR FLOOD: Oh I would think, thought so. I can’t remember but I would have thought, I would have thought so.
MR WALL: Right
MR FLOOD: I mean I can’t say …
MR WALL: But that …
MR FLOOD: … how long ago was that? It was um, …
MR WALL: Mm.
MR FLOOD: …’99, I would have thought they would, they would know that I was. I, I …
MR WALL: Yes.
MR FLOOD: can’t specifically, you know, I’d like to be able to say to you, yes, 100% …
MR WALL: Yep.
MR FLOOD: … and well I can say that but, you know, I, I’m, I’m absolutely honest you see so I guess …
MR WALL: Uh huh.
MR FLOOD: … er, unless I can remember the exact conversation I won’t say that so, no.
There is no evidence to the contrary. I note that the complainant did not produce a statement from the vendors about the circumstances of the transaction.
For those reasons, I accept Mr Henchliffe’s submission as far as it goes. Mr Flood cannot say unequivocally that he told the vendors of his interest. Even if he did, he was still in clear breach of the regulation because he did not tell them in writing, and continued to act for both parties.
Count 2
Count 2 relates to the sale of a property at 117 Commercial Street West, Mount Gambier by Kentish Pty Ltd to FEDS Nominees Pty Ltd. Mr Flood acted as a conveyancer for both the vendor and the purchaser in that transaction. The Memorandum of Transfer is dated 24 September 2001, and the settlement took place on 2 October 2001.
An acknowledgement that Mr Flood was acting for both parties to the transaction which, again, was not signed or dated by Mr Flood, was signed by JE Kentish for and on behalf of Kentish Pty Ltd on 20 September 2001.
As in Count 1, there is no written evidence that Mr Flood informed the vendor of his financial interest in the transaction.
Mr Henchliffe told me that the company secretary, Mr Brian Walker, was well known to Mr Flood, and that he had done business with him both before and since the transaction in question. The unlawfulness of Mr Flood’s conduct is the same as it was in relation to Count 1.
Count 3
Count 3 relates to the sale of a property at 155 Penola Road, Mount Gambier by Wendy Cormick to Engler Enterprises Pty Ltd, Mirkwood Nominees Pty Ltd, GB & TI Somerfield Pty Ltd, Trupa Pty Ltd, and Dylmatty Pty Ltd. The Memorandum of Transfer was dated 16 June 2006, and settlement took place on 19 June 2006. The Memorandum was executed by Caroline Sue Flood as a director, and Bernard Ignatius Flood as secretary of Mirkwood Nominees Pty Ltd.
As with Counts 1 and 2, Mr Flood gave notice that he was acting for both sides of the transaction, and in fact signed this document, although he did not date it. Ms Cormick acknowledged that she read and understood his advice.
Ms Cormick had listed her property with Gebhardt Real Estate, Land Agents, a business operated by HL Gebhardt & Associates Pty Ltd.
The salesman employed by Gebhardts who negotiated the sale was Peter Dempsey, a Director and Shareholder of Dylmatty Pty Ltd, one of the purchasers.
Mr Henchliffe submitted on behalf of his client that he took no active part in the negotiations for the purchase. He told the investigators
Well I got a phone call one day from Peter Dempsey saying to me to, I’ve never really been involved in buying any of these things, I just, I’m one of the group and therefore saying that we’re looking, they’re going to buy and come and have a look at something we are going to buy and I said well, I’m not interested but whatever you want to do, you do it. So I didn’t go …. What happened was that, you know, you’ve got the four or five people in the (inaudible) You don’t need five captains and I said if you blokes, if someone’s made a decision and they think it’s a good decision to buy, that’s good enough for me ….[5]
[5] Book of Documents p 45
In particular, Mr Flood said he was not aware that Peter Dempsey had acted as the selling agent for the property.[6] He said that he did not see the Contract when it came to his office because his staff would have immediately began preparing the relevant documentation for the transfer. Mr Flood acknowledged that he certified the document as being correct, yet he asserts that he would not have read the contract before doing so.[7] He asserted that he would not have been aware that the sale would have been negotiated through Gebhardts even after settlement had taken place, and after his firm corresponded with Gebhardts confirming that the settlement had taken place.[8]
[6]    Book of Documents p 49
[7]    Book of Documents p 49
[8]    Book of Documents p 50
Be that as it may, there is no dispute in this case that Mr Flood did not advise Ms Cormick of his financial interest in the transaction. He said he did not ever speak to her personally, since she resided in Paringa in the Riverland. He said
When you’re in the city, people post things out but down here they come and see you, so they sit down. Had that person come and seen me, I would have said. So I didn’t see them, I didn’t realise what it was. I wouldn’t have even known if I was acting for both parties.[9]
[9] Book of Documents p 52
That statement exemplifies Mr Flood’s attitude to his responsibilities as a conveyancer. This is a matter of great concern. Not only has he failed to notify the vendor of his own financial interest in the transaction, he has also failed to advise the vendor of Mr Dempsey’s interest.
Section 23(2) of the Land and Business (Sale and Conveyancing) Act, 1994, makes it an offence for an employee of an agent to have a direct or indirect interest in the purchase of land that the agent is commissioned to sell (except the interest that exists because of his employment). Mr Flood acknowledged to the investigator that he was under “some obligation to advise the vendor of that”.[10]
[10] Book of Docuemnts p 56
Mr Henchliffe submitted that if Ms Cormick had read the blank Memorandum of Transfer sent to her by Mr Flood for signature,[11] she would have seen that one of the purchasing companies was Mirkwood Nominees Pty Ltd and that Caroline Sue Flood was to execute the document as a director and Bernard Ignatius Flood as the secretary of the company.
[11] Book of Documetns p 109
He submitted that this illustrates that Mr Flood was not attempting to hide this information from Ms Cormick and that his failure to do so was simply an oversight.
For the reasons I have already expressed, Mr Flood’s departures from the standards to be expected of conveyancers is more serious than that.
Count 4
Count 4 also relates to the Penola Road property. While Count 3 is directed at Mr Flood’s continuing to act as conveyancer for both the vendor and the purchaser in the transaction whilst having a pecuniary interest therein, and was therefore unlawful, Count 4 alleges that he acted negligently in failing to disclose that he was a director of Mirkwood Nominees Pty Ltd.
I regard this as a serious aspect of Mr Flood’s behaviour. I note that the complaint alleges that this was an act of negligence rather than intention. But it was negligence of a high order. The relationship between a conveyancer and his client is a fiduciary relationship at common law, and the duty owed by the professional person to the client in that situation is of an onerous one.
Mr Flood is a member of the Australian Institute of Conveyancers. That Association, by its Code of Conduct, places similar duties on its members to those set out in the Regulations. Clause 11.2 requires frank disclosure to a client of any interest they may have in any matter in which they are acting for that client, and if that interest is adverse to that of the client they should cease acting unless otherwise instructed by the client. Clause 11.3 requires the conveyancer to make full and frank disclosure to clients of any matter or thing which could be reasonably regarded by the client as raising a conflict of interest on the part of the conveyancer. It is arguable that these duties may even be wider than those set out in the Regulations. In that context, it is difficult to see how Mr Flood could have been in any doubt as to the extent of his obligations under Regulation 18, and the “wider definition” of conflict of interest in Regulation 19.

With that background, the reaction of the client, Ms Cormick, was predictable. She said:-
After the sale I heard nothing more and knew nothing of the involvement of either Peter Dempsey or Bernie Flood in the purchase of my property until I was advised by the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs in November 2006. I have since been involved in discussions with Gebhardts through Ron Chuck, Paul Chuck and Kelly Agnew. I have been refunded the full amount of commission (including GST) being $7,260 that I had paid to the agent. I have also discussed with them whether they had any knowledge about the people being involved (Dempsey and Flood) in the purchase of the property, and they assured me that they didn’t as it was very important to me, and I accept their explanations.
Having found out about the alleged conflict of interest on the part of Dempsey and Flood, I am extremely annoyed and partly that was my reason for ringing Gebhardts to find out who was involved and who knew about it. I felt extremely ripped off by the people involved and really annoyed that they would do something like that when I had trusted them, particularly with my most valuable asset and that they should treat me so badly. When I rang Gebhardts I was quite angry and I spoke to Ron Chuck at length. He said that they did not know what had happened at the time and when they did it was reported to the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs. He was happy to pay back the commission and was concerned that I would give them a bad reputation which they didn’t want, but I would not have done that anyway. I spoke to Kelly Agnew who apologised and said she had no idea who was involved with the purchase. I do tend to believe both of them and are quite happy with their response, but I am really unhappy with both Dempsey and Flood. I have not had any discussions with the conveyancer about this matter.
Mr Henchliffe submitted that Count 4 only refers to the failure to disclose the fact that Mr Flood was a Director of Mirkwood Nominees Pty Ltd and was not, as Ms Hughes, counsel for the Complainant submitted, a breach of his fiduciary duty to his client by disclosing his pecuniary interest. In my opinion that distinction is purely semantic. By failing to disclose his directorship, Mr Flood failed to disclose his pecuniary interest, and was thus in breach of his fiduciary duty to Ms Cormick.
Having made those points, I accept that there is no evidence that Mr Flood benefited from any non-disclosure, or that the vendor would have necessarily acted differently. It would be impossible to separate the effect of Mr Flood’s failures in this case from the actions of Mr Dempsey, which were far more serious in character, for the purpose of causation in any event.
I accept in relation to all four counts, that Mr Flood’s failure to comply with the Regulations was unintentional although it was the product of bad practice. I accept that he is contrite. I note from Ms Cormick’s statement that Mr Ron Chuck, the principal of Gebhardts Land Agents had refunded the commission on the sale of the property to Ms Cormick, and Mr Henchliffe informed me that Mr Dempsey had been dismissed from his employment as a result of his actions. Indeed, it was Mr Chuck’s report to the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs which led to these proceedings.
Mr Dempsey was prosecuted in the Magistrates Court at Mount Gambier before Mr WAG Morris SM on 15 December 2008. He was charged with a Breach of s 23(2) of the Land and Business (Sale and Conveyancing) Act. The maximum penalty was a fine of up to $2,500 or imprisonment for up to 6 months. A perusal of His Honour’s reasons discloses that penalty was imposed on the agreed basis that Mr Dempsey had introduced “Mr Douglas” (I think His Honour meant Neil Douglas Engler), who made the offer to purchase the property for $15,000 less than the lowest asking price set by the vendor. It was not until after the contract was signed that Mr Engler invited Dempsey to join with him and the others in purchasing the property. Despite His Honour’s reservations, he imposed penalty on that basis.
His Honour recorded a conviction, declining a submission that he should not do so, and fined Mr Dempsey $900 and ordered him to pay costs of the prosecution of $800 and other related fees.
I take into account Mr Flood’s personal circumstances as outlined by Mr Henchliffe. He has been a conveyancer in Mount Gambier for 28 years and employs 4 staff. He has no criminal convictions whatsoever. He has built his practice into a large and successful business. He is well regarded in the community and that is demonstrated by the references that have been tendered. I notice that one referee was Mr Ron Chuck, who was obviously extremely embarrassed by Mr Dempsey’s behaviour. I accept that he has been an active and contributing member of the Mount Gambier community both in relation to sporting and other activities.
It is conceded that proper cause exists for disciplinary action pursuant to s 45 of the Conveyancers Act 1994. Mr Flood has acted unlawfully in relation to Counts 1, 2 and 3 and negligently in relation to Count 4.
Section 49 of the Act provides that in those circumstances, I may do one or more of the following:
(a)     reprimand the person;
(b)     impose a fine not exceeding $20 000 on the person;
(c)     in the case of a person who is registered as a conveyancer—
(i)    suspend the registration for a specified period or until the fulfilment of stipulated conditions or until further order; or
(ii)     cancel the registration;
(d)in the case of a person whose registration is suspended—impose conditions as to the conduct of the person or the person's business as a conveyancer after the end of the period of suspension;
(e)     disqualify the person from being registered under this Act;
(f)prohibit the person from being employed or otherwise engaged in the business of a conveyancer;
(g)     prohibit the person from being a director of a company that is a conveyancer.
Mr Henchliffe submitted that doing any of those things is discretionary, and that I might feel it appropriate to do no more than note the breach (it would be more accurate to say breaches), without imposing any sanction.
I accept that Mr Flood is a person of otherwise good character, that he regrets his behaviour, that he is unlikely to re-offend and that these proceedings have no doubt caused him some embarrassment in a small community like Mount Gambier. Having said that, I note that he retains the support of Mr Chuck, and also Ms Tuffnell another licensed Land Agent in Mount Gambier, so it would not appear that his business has suffered unduly as a result.
It was submitted that I should have regard to the penalty imposed by Mr Morris SM in relation to Mr Dempsey. That gives rise to a number of difficulties:
the range of penalties available to the learned Magistrate was quite different to those before me;
Mr Dempsey lost his job as a result of his behaviour;
the circumstances of Mr Dempsey’s offending, on the version of events put before the learned Magistrate, was quite different;
there was only one transaction before the learned Magistrate, whereas there are three before me;
Mr Dempsey’s employer refunded his commission to the vendor as a result of Mr Dempsey’s behaviour whereas no mention has been made of a refund of Mr Flood’s fees in this case;
Mr Dempsey was facing criminal proceedings in the Magistrates Court whereas these are disciplinary proceedings.
As to that last point, in Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Sollars,[12]Doyle CJ at page 148 said in relation to the Security and Investigation Agents Act 1995, which has a similar scheme for taking disciplinary action,
… it needs to be understood that the order itself is not punitive in character, nor is the decision as to the order to be made to be reached by reference to considerations relevant to the sentencing of an offender. The observations made by the High Court in New South Wales Bar Association v Evatt[13] are as applicable to this case as they are to disciplinary proceedings against members of the legal profession. There the Court said:[14]
“The power of the court to discipline a barrister is entirely protective, and, notwithstanding that its exercise may involve a great deprivation to the person disciplined, there is no element of punishment involved.”
The Court then went on to refer to remarks with like effect that it had made in Clyne v New South Wales Bar Association[15]where it said:
“… (a) disbarring order is in no sense punitive in character. When such an order is made, it is made from the public point of view, for the protection of those who require protection, and from a professional point of view, in order that abuse of privilege may not lead to loss of privilege.”
[12] (2001) 79 SASR 145
[13] (1968) 117 CLR 177
[14] at p 183-184
[15] (1960) 104 CLR 186 at 201
In my view, His Honour’s reference to Clyne’s case is particularly apposite here. A registered conveyancer in this state has been placed in a privileged position by legislation. It is vital that conveyancers meet high ethical standards, that they be aware of their professional responsibilities, that their office systems and methods be such that conflicts of interest such as the ones involved here be avoided and that necessary disclosures to clients be full and frank. It is necessary to impose a penalty which will not only ensure that Mr Flood does not repeat these breaches of the Act and Regulations, but that other conveyancers will be reminded of the seriousness with which such breaches will be viewed.
With those comments in mind, it will be quite inappropriate to simply note the breaches in this case without taking any further action. In my view the circumstances of the case certainly call for a reprimand pursuant to s 49(1)(a).
I consider that a suspension or cancellation of registration would be more than is required for the ongoing protection of the public.
In all those circumstances, in addition to a reprimand, I impose a fine of $2,000. That sum is made up of $500 in relation to the transaction referred to in Count 1, $500 in relation to the transaction referred to in Count 2, and $1,000 in relation to the transaction referred to in Counts 3 and 4.