COMMISSIONER FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION and ELMER [2018] WASAT 16

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2018] WASAT 16
Act:	MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIRERS ACT 2003 (WA)
Case No:	VR:171/2017	Heard:	DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS
Coram:	JUSTICE J C CURTHOYS (PRESIDENT) MS D QUINLAN (MEMBER) MR T TOWNSEND (SESSIONAL MEMBER)	Delivered:	9/03/18
No of pages:	25	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Respondent reprimanded Respondent disqualified from holding a motor vehicle repairer's certificate for a period of two years
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	COMMISSIONER FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION MATTHEW LAWRENCE ELMER
Catchwords:	Repairer's certificate False or misleading information Failure to notifiy of offences Conduct rendering unfit to hold a certificate
Legislation:	Criminal Code Compilation Act 1913 (WA), s 401(2) Motor Vehicle Repairers Act 2003 (WA), s 49(1), s 65(1)(c), s 66, s 68(1), s 68(1)(a)(i), s 68(1)(a)(ii), s 69, s 69(1), s 68(2)(a), Sch 1, cl 1(a), cl 5, Sch 2, cl 1
Case References:	Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Chamberlain v Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory (1993) 118 ALR 54 Council of the Law Society (NSW) v A Solicitor [2002] NSWCA 62 Craig v The Medical Board of South Australia [2001] SASC 169 Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No 2) (1955) 93 CLR 127 Johns v Law Society of New South Wales [1982] 2 NSWLR 1 Land Valuers Licensing Board and Nevermann [2010] WASAT 38 Law Society of New South Wales v Foreman (1994) 34 NSWLR 408 Law Society of New South Wales v Walsh [1997] NSWCA 185 Legal Profession Complaints Committee and A Legal Practitioner (S) [2013] WASAT 37 (S) Legal Profession Complaints Committee and Amsden [2014] WASAT 57 (S) Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Lashansky [2007] WASC 211 Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Love [2014] WASC 389 Legal Profession Complaints Committee v O'Halloran [2013] WASC 430 Mavaddat v Real Estate & Business Agents Supervisory Board [2009] WASCA 179 Medical Board of Western Australia and Bham [2006] WASAT 190 Medical Board of Western Australia and Wright [2010] WASAT 48 Motor Vehicle Industry Board and Dawson [2006] WASAT 8 New South Wales Bar Association v Evatt (1968) 117 CLR 177 New South Wales Bar Association v Hamman [1999] NSWCA 404 Paridis v Settlement Agents Supervisory Board [2007] WASCA 97; (2007) 33 WAR 361 Real Estate and Business Agents Supervisory Board v LJW [2011] WASCA 35 Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board (1979) 22 SASR 70 Tavelli v Johnson (Unreported, WASC; Library No 960693, 25 November 1996) Veterinary Practitioners Board of NSW v Johnson [2010] NSWADT 308
Orders	1. Mr Matthew Lawrence Elmer be reprimanded, pursuant to Sch 1, cl 5 of the Motor Vehicle Repairers Act 2003 (WA).,2. Mr Matthew Lawrence Elmer be disqualified from holding or obtaining a motor vehicle repairer's certificate for a period of two years from the date of this order pursuant to Sch 1, cl 1(a) and Sch 2, cl 1 of the Motor Vehicle Repairers Act 2003 (WA).
Summary	This matter concerned an application made…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read COMMISSIONER FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION and ELMER and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] WASAT 16
Decision Date: 9 MARCH 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Commissioner for Consumer Protection brought proceedings against Elmer, a motor vehicle repairer, for allegedly providing false or misleading information to customers and failing to notify authorities of relevant offences. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The Commissioner sought a range of remedies, including a reprimand, disqualification from holding a repairer's certificate, and fines.

The central legal issues in the case involved whether Elmer had provided misleading information to customers, whether he had failed to notify authorities of relevant offences, and whether these actions rendered him unfit to hold a motor vehicle repairer's certificate. The court was required to consider the relevant statutory provisions and case law to determine whether the Commissioner's allegations were substantiated and, if so, what remedies were appropriate.

The court found that Elmer had indeed provided misleading information to customers and had failed to notify authorities of relevant offences. These actions were deemed serious breaches of the statutory requirements for holding a motor vehicle repairer's certificate. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining high standards in the motor vehicle repair industry to protect consumers. The court concluded that Elmer's conduct warranted a reprimand and a disqualification from holding a motor vehicle repairer's certificate for a period of two years. The court did not impose any fines in this instance.

Orders

Orders of the court

Respondent reprimanded

Respondent disqualified from holding a motor vehicle repairer's certificate for a period of two years

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.