Delta Trading Corporation Pty Limited v Director General, Department of Fair Trading - [2000] NSWADT 132

No judgment structure available for this case.

CITATION: Delta Trading Corporation Pty Limited -v- Director General, Department of Fair Trading [2000] NSWADT 132

DIVISION: General Division

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
Delta Tradin Corporation Pty Limited trading as Delta Loan Office
RESPONDENT
Director General, Department of Fair Trading

FILE NUMBER: 003225

HEARING DATES: 21 August 2000

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 08/21/2000

DATE OF DECISION:
09/15/2000

BEFORE: Hennessy N (Deputy President)

APPLICATION: Pawnbrokers & Second-Hand Dealers Act - second-hand dealers licence - grant of licence - Pawnbrokers & Second-Hand Dealers Act - second-hand dealers licence - revocation or suspension of licence - Second-Hand Dealers licence - grant of licence - Second-Hand Dealers licence - revocation or suspension of licence

MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter

LEGISLATION CITED: Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act 1996

CASES CITED:

REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
P Khanhar, solicitor
RESPONDENT
A Wilson, solicitor

ORDERS: The Director General’s decision to revoke the applicant’s licence and place a condition on its renewal is affirmed.

Background

1 Ms Nguyen is one of the directors of the applicant, Delta Trading Corporation Pty Limited (Delta). The other director, Kim Son Dang, died on 13 September 1999. Delta was the holder of a Pawnbroker and Second-hand Dealers Licence issued on 17 April 1998. On 26 June 2000 the Director General revoked the licence under s 36(4) of the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act 1996 (the Act) and, under s 36(3) of the Act, determined that Delta not be granted a further licence for a period of 2 years. Delta has applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision.

2 Two inspections of Delta’s business records were conducted by Department of Fair Trading officers in September and November 1998. On 20 May 1999, Delta’s licence was renewed and a condition placed on the licence requiring records to be kept electronically. Departmental officers conducted an interview with Ms Nguyen, Mr Dang and their solicitor on 9 July 1999. A Notice to Show Cause as to why its licence should not be revoked, was served on Delta on 19 October 1999. Section 34(1)(h) and (i) of the Act allow the Director General to serve such a notice on any licensee:

3 The Director General’s revocation of the licence, pursuant to s 36 of the Act, was based on his satisfaction, on the balance of probabilities, that the grounds in the Show Cause Notice had been substantiated. It was alleged that Delta had failed to comply with a condition which was placed on the licence on 20 May 1999, that records be created and stored electronically. Delta accepted that they were in breach of this condition until 26 August 1999.

4 The second ground was that Delta was carrying on the licensed business in a dishonest or unfair manner. The main basis for this ground was the inadequacy and/or inaccuracy of records kept about the identity of the owners of three mobile phones purchased by Delta on 1 September 1998. While Ms Nguyen accepted that she had not complied with all the requirements of the legislation, she did not accept that her failure to do so was unfair or dishonest. The Director General also alleged that Delta had sold goods contrary to a requirement in the legislation not to sell certain categories of goods within 14 days of buying or receiving them. Ms N’s explanation for this was that she was under the impression that the goods had been purchased at auction so there was no need to comply with the time period.

5 Delta responded to the Notice to Show Cause on 2 November 1999. On 26 June 2000, after taking into account Delta’s submissions, the Director General decided to revoke the licence.

Jurisdiction

6 The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to section 38 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (ADT Act) and section 39(2) of the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act 1996.

7 Generally an internal review must be finalised before a person can apply to the Tribunal for a review of a decision. (See s 55(1)(b) of ADT Act.) In this case, the applicant did not apply for an internal review of the Director General’s decision. Because the matter would be unnecessarily delayed if an internal review was carried out at this stage and because the application to the Tribunal was made within a reasonable time after the Director General’s decision, the Tribunal decided to deal with the application without the need for an internal review pursuant to s 55(2)(c) of the ADT Act.

Issue

8 As provided in s 63 of the ADT Act, the Tribunal must determine whether the decision of the Director General to revoke Delta’s licence, and refuse to grant a further licence for 2 years, is the correct and preferable decision. If not, the Tribunal must vary or set aside the decision. In making such a determination, the Tribunal must take into account the material before it including any relevant factual material and any applicable written or unwritten law.

Legislation

9 There are several provisions in the Act and in the Pawbrokers and Second-Hand Dealers Regulation 1997 (the Regulations) which are relevant to these proceedings. It is an offence under s 7 of the Act to carry on a business of buying or selling second-hand goods without a licence. In relation to electronic records, section 11 and 16 of the Act and Clauses 13 and 13A of the Regulations require certain second hand dealers to keep records electronically. As there was no dispute about the applicability of these provisions to Delta, I have not set out the provisions in this decision.

10 The objective of the electronic record keeping provisions is apparent from the Regulatory Impact Statement to the Regulation which states, in part, that:

The proposed Regulation specifies that licensees must keep detailed records and maintain records in a computerised form. This is to enable the direct transmission of data to police on a regular and timely basis. This data is then able to be cross checked against computerised records of stolen goods. These requirements help to ensure that the Act operates to increase the effectiveness of law enforcement to recover stolen goods and apprehend offenders.

11 The provisions of the legislation also require second hand dealers to record certain information about the identity of the seller and other matters when accepting any goods offered for sale. Section 15 of the Act provides that:

12 Clause 14(2)(a) of the Regulation sets out certain particulars which are prescribed for the purposes of section 16(1). That clause states that:

13 In addition, Clause 18(3) of Regulation requires the licensee to obtain from the customer a written statement about ownership. That clause states that:

(3) For the purposes of section 15 (3) of the Act, the licensee must obtain from the customer a written statement as to the ownership of goods to the effect of the form set out in Form 2 in Schedule 1.

14 The effect of these provisions, so far as they are relevant to this case, is that whenever a licensee accepts goods offered for sale the licensee must obtain the name, address, date of birth and signature of the person offering the goods or his or her agent. The licensee must also obtain a statement of ownership.

15 In relation to the length of time a licensee must hold second-hand goods, section 21(1)(a) of the Act provides that:

16 Pursuant to clause 19(1)(b) of the Regulations, the 14 day retention period does not apply to “goods purchased by the licensee at auction”.

17 The overall purpose of these, and the other provisions of the Act, was summarised by the Minister for Fair Trading, Ms Lo Po’ in the Second Reading Speech introducing the bill. The Honourable Minister said that:

Evidence and findings of fact

18 In relation to the allegation that Delta had failed to comply with a condition of the licence to keep records electronically, Delta admitted that it had not complied with the requirement until August 1999. In mitigation, Ms Nguyen said that Dang was the person who was more familiar with computer technology.

19 In her application for a licence on 20 March 1998 she answered “No” to the question “Have you made preliminary arrangements for the supply of the computer software to allow you to maintain the necessary records?”

20 On 19 August 1998 Mr Dang collapsed and was later diagnosed with a brain tumour. He underwent a right temporal craniotomy on 31 August 1998 and died on 13 September 1999. Ms Nguyen was Dang’s sister in law and they were very close. Ms Nguyen said that Dang was more experienced in the shop and had a better knowledge of the dealings of the business and especially the computer system than she did.

21 Ms Nguyen said that she knew she did not have to comply with the computerised record requirements until she applied to renew her licence on 20 May 1999. In March 1999 Dang made some enquires and obtained soft ware which she was not happy with because it was too complicated. Nguyen said she inquired about different software on 10 June 1999 and was negotiating with a software provider in June and July. The software was finally operational on 26 August 1999. During this period she was still recording transactions manually. This version of events is supported by documentary evidence attached to Ms Nguyen’s statement and I accept it. Nevertheless she was in breach of the condition for a period of approximately 3 months.

22 The allegation that Delta was carrying on business in a dishonest or unfair manner, relates to the records relating to three mobile phones all bought on 1 September 1998. The reference numbers for these phones in Delta’s “Form 5” or Purchasers’ Book are 480, 481 and 482. I will deal with each of the three records separately.

23 Reference 480. Page 21965 of the Form 5 or Purchasers’ Book kept by Delta shows that on 1 September 1998 Ms Nguyen received a mobile phone. A description of the phone was written in Column 2 of the Form and the amount paid was shown in Column 4. In column 5 and 6, under the heading “Name and address of owner of goods purchased or received” and “full name and signature of person from whom goods received”, respectively, the following words were written:

“Second Hand Dealer Walid Kamoun” and “19 Lion St Punchbowl”.

24 Ms Nguyen said that Mr Osman gave her those details and she wrote them in the book. According to Ms Nguyen, Mr Osman was a person who regularly attended auctions. She had asked him to buy mobile phones for her at auction so she could re-sell them in the shop. She said she trusted Mr Osman.

25 In her statement Ms Nguyen said that Mr Osman gave her a receipt from “Wally” (Walid Kammoun) when he gave her the phone. That receipt, Exhibit F, is a handwritten note which states that:

26 Ms Nguyen said that after the Departmental officers came to see her, she called Osman and asked him to give her some documentation from “Wally” in relation to the phone. Mr Osman then delivered the receipt to her 2 or 3 days before the interview with Departmental officers on 9 July 1999. That note, Exhibit E, states that:

I Walid Kamoun (sic) at address 11 Lancelot St Punchbowl sold Ericsson 788 GF to Delta Loan Office in Hurstville for the amount of $400 cash. The phone was bought from Combined Auctions on 1 September 1998.

27 Ms Nguyen says she was under the impression when she bought the phone that it was purchased from Combined Auctions. She provided evidence (annexure L to her statement) that “Wally” had bought the phone from Combined Auctions Pty Limited on 1 September 1998.

28 Ms Nguyen said that Mr Osman told her that Walid Kammoun was a second hand dealer. She didn’t make any inquiries about who he was. Osman told her that he had bought the phone at auction and she just wrote down what Mr Osman said. She said she trusted him completely because she knew he went to auctions all the time. Ms Nguyen said she was very worried about Dang on 1 September 1998 because he had collapsed 11 days previously. She said she couldn’t concentrate on what she was doing.

29 Mr C gave evidence that he is an Investigation Officer with the Department of Fair Trading and that he interviewed Ms Nguyen and Mr Dang on 9 July 1999. He prepared a synopsis of the interview. At page 8 of the synopsis (point 113) the following summary is recorded:

Nguyen states that Osman delivered the phone on behalf of Walid Kamoun and she obtained from Osman his drivers licence, home phone number, home address and date of birth.

30 Mr Cornish said that Exhibit E (handwritten note signed by Walid Kammoun) was shown to Ms Nguyen while being asked questions about Reference 480. He said she indicated that she received that note from Osman when he sold her the phone, not at a later date. Mr Cornish denied that there was any confusion about which document related to which reference number.

31 I listened to the tape of the interview in chambers at the request of the parties. After receiving from Ms Nguyen the note signed by Walid Kammoun (Exhibit E) and the note signed by Osman (Exhibit F) which were attached, Mr Cornish asked Ms Nguyen to “explain what this means”. Ms Nguyen said words to the effect of:

I ask him to buy some phones for me at auction. He say his friend got the phone so he deliver that phone from Walid to my shop so when he come in the shop I took his ID from Osman, his driver’s licence, home phone number, date of birth. He write it on the piece of paper. He on behalf of Walid Kammoun to deliver phone for me.

32 Ms Nguyen agreed that Walid Kammoun had not come into the shop on 1 September 1998. In the exchange between Mr Cornish and Ms Nguyen which followed, Ms Nguyen reiterated on several occasions that she received both documents (Exhibits E and F) from Mr Osman on 1 September 1998. Ms Nguyen denied knowing anything about Walid Kammoun being approached a few days before the interview to produce further documentation.

33 Ms Nguyen was clear in the interview that Osman came to the shop “on behalf of” Walid Kammoun. Ms Nguyen said in her statement that she never met Mr Kammoun but she had heard his name in association with the auctions that Mr Osman attended.

34 Walid Kammoun gave evidence that he lives at 11 Lancelot Street Punchbowl. He was a licensed second hand dealer for 12 months from 19 May 1999 but said that he has never been to Delta Loan Office to sell phones. In relation to Exhibit E, the handwritten document signed by Mr Kammoun, he said that on 7 July 1999 Mr Nmer Osman, an acquaintance of his, approached him and asked him to sign a note about buying and selling the phones because “there is some investigation to the phone.” Mr Kammoun says that Mr Osman wrote the note and he signed it. Mr Kammoun said that apart from his name being misspelt, the contents of the note are correct.

35 Ms Nguyen said that she did not realise that she was supposed to obtain a statement from each customer as to the ownership of the goods in the form prescribed by Form 2, in Schedule 1 to the Regulation. She thought that because the phone was bought at auction she did not have to fill in these forms.

36 Ms Nguyen agreed that although Mr Osman had bought the phones at auction, she had not bought them at auction. She said she still thought that she did not need to comply with the Regulations.

37 Ms Nguyen said she had not read the legislation which applied to her because her English wasn’t very good but she understood that she had to record the details of transactions. She agreed that she had held a licence for 12 months from 14 February 1997 to 13 February 1998 when she worked at another pawnbroking business. She was the Manager and it was her job to ensure that everything was accurate. At the time of the transaction involving the three mobile phones, she had had a licence for approximately 16 months.

38 On the basis of this evidence, I find that Mr Osman came into the Delta office on 1 September 1998 and sold Ms Nguyen the phone and charger recorded next to Reference 480. At the same time, he gave her the document, Exhibit F, which records his name, address, date of birth and signature. The details recorded in the Purchasers’ Book are incorrect and incomplete. The address of Kammoun does not appear in Column 5. Osman’s full name and signature, which should have appeared in Column 6, were not recorded. An address of 19 Lion Street Punchbowl is recorded under Column 6. This is very similar but not identical to Mr Osman’s address which is 9 Lyon Ave, Punchbowl.

39 Despite Ms Nguyen saying in the interview that Mr Osman also gave her Exhibit E at the same time as Exhibit F, the evidence of Mr Kammoun and Mr Cornish, convinces me that this was not the case. Indeed, Ms Nguyen changed her mind about this when giving oral evidence and agreed that she had approached Mr Osman before the interview to obtain a “receipt” from “Wally”.

40 My findings in relation to Reference 480 mean that while Ms Nguyen complied with the Act and Regulations in relation to obtaining evidence of the identity of the person offering the phone, she did not record this evidence in the Purchaser’s Book nor did she obtain documentation about the ownership of the phone until she was called in for an interview with officers of the Department. Furthermore, at the interview she did not tell the truth about when she obtained that documentation.

41 Reference 481. The Purchasers’ Book also records that on 1 September 1998 Ms Nguyen received a second mobile phone. A description of the phone was written in Column 2 of the Form and the amount paid was shown in Column 4. Ms Nguyen wrote these entries. In column 5 and 6, under the heading “Name and address of owner of goods purchased or received” and “full name and signature of person from whom goods received”, nothing was recorded.

42 Ms Nguyen said in her statement that the phone was purchased from Osman on 1 September 1998. She said Osman gave her a “receipt” at the time (Exhibit G). The receipt stated that:

43 The rest of the writing on the “receipt” was written by Ms Nguyen and includes Mr Kang’s address, driver’s licence number and date of birth.

44 Ms Nguyen said in oral evidence that Osman had told her he got the phone from a friend, Billy Kang, who had got it from an auction. She said she has never met Billy Kang. She said she saw Mr Osman write “I’m Billy Kang I sold phone etc.” When asked whether she saw Mr Osman sign the note, she said she wasn’t sure because she was writing up the book at the time so she doesn’t know if he signed it as well.

45 Ms Nguyen admitted in the interview with Mr Cornish that she had “made a mistake” by not recording Billy Kang’s name and other details in the Purchasers’ Book. At the interview she also said that Billy Kang came into the shop on 1 September 1998 and that he signed the note. (Exhibit G) She said “Billy told me it (the phone) came from auction.” This is inconsistent with her oral evidence which was that Billy Kang was not there when Mr Osman sold her the phone.

46 On the basis of this evidence I find that Osman sold the phone recorded next to Reference 481, to Ms Nguyen on 1 September 1998. At that time, Mr Osman gave Ms Nguyen Exhibit G. Ms Nguyen saw Mr Osman start to write this note. There was no evidence about when Ms Nguyen wrote Mr Kang’s name address and other details on the note.

47 These findings in relation to Reference 481 mean that Ms Nguyen did not comply with the Act and Regulations in relation to obtaining and recording details of the identity of the person offering the phone, that is, Mr Osman. She did obtain documentation about the ownership of the phone but did not record those details in the Purchasers’ Book. Finally, Mr Nguyen did not tell the truth to the Departmental officers about who was present when the phone was sold or who gave her the information about the identity of the owner.

48 Reference 482. The Purchasers’ Book shows that on 1 September 1998 Ms Nguyen received a third mobile phone. A description of the phone was written in Column 2 of the Form and the amount paid was shown in Column 4. In column 5 and 6, under the heading “Name and address of owner of goods purchased or received” and “full name and signature of person from whom goods received”, the following information was recorded:

“Bassem Hadad, Second Hand Dealer, 5/104 Victoria Rd, Punchbowl.”

49 Ms Nguyen gave evidence that these words were written in the book by Mr Osman.

50 In the interview with Mr Cornish, Ms Nguyen could offer no explanation when Mr Cornish told her that he had visited 5/104 Victoria Rd Punchbowl (the address for Mr Hadad in the Purchasers’ Book) and the resident told him that he had live there for four years and had never heard of Mr Hadad.

51 The second half of the note (Exhibit F) relates to reference 482 and says:

52 While Ms Nguyen said at the interview that Bassem Hadad came into the shop on 1 September to sell her the phone, she said in oral evidence that Mr Osman gave her Exhibit F on 1 September 1998.

53 These findings in relation to Reference 482 mean that Ms Nguyen did not comply with the Act and Regulations in relation to obtaining and recording details of the identity of the person offering the phone, that is, Mr Osman. She did obtain documentation about the ownership of the phone but did not tell the truth to the Departmental officers about who was present when the phone was sold or who gave her the information about the identity of the owner.

54 The Purchasers Book records that Reference 480 was sold on 10 September 1998 and Reference 482 was sold on 7 September 1998. Ms Nguyen said that she thought that because the goods came from an auction they could be sold straight away. She said she didn’t check anything or pay attention.

55 In summary, Ms Nguyen dealt with the phones as if she had bought them from auction when she admitted that she bought them from an individual who came into her shop. This meant that she did not complete Form 2 which was required and she sold two of the phones prior to the statutory period of 14 days. She also failed to record in the Purchaser’s Book the correct identity details of the owner of each of the phones and the name and signature of the customer. There is evidence that Mr Kammoun was the owner of one of the phones. There is no conclusive evidence of ownership in relation to Mr Kang or Mr Haddad.

56 Furthermore, Ms Nguyen attempted to mislead Departmental officers at the interview by saying she thought she was buying goods from auction, that she had “not got any experience at all” and that Billy Kany and Bassem Hadad were present at the shop on 1 September 2000.

Applicant’s submissions

57 Ms Nguyen’s solicitor submitted that while Ms Nguyen was commercially imprudent, she was not dishonest. Exhibit L verifies the ownership of one of the phones and demonstrates that it was not stolen. The Director General did not have this evidence when the decision was made to revoke the licence. Ms Nguyen’s only mistake was to trust Osman, rather than check the details herself.

58 While Delta was technically in breach of the requirement for electronic software, Ms Nguyen ordered new software after finding the software Dang bought was too complicated. She ordered the new on 10 June, only 20 days after she was supposed to comply with the condition. There was then some delay before the software arrived.

59 The Director General’s decision relates to one set of transactions on one day. While her record keeping on that day demonstrates her ignorance of the commercial requirements of the legislation it does not demonstrate that she acted unfairly or dishonestly.

Respondent’s submission

60 Mr Wilson submitted that Ms Nguyen was in breach of a condition to keep electronic records and that she had acted unfairly and dishonestly. Her conduct in failing to accurately and comprehensively site and record details concerning the customer and the owner is unfair firstly to purchasers of goods because they were not protected from receiving stolen goods if those goods are not recorded correctly. Secondly victims of crime are not protected if their goods cannot be traced.

61 Ms Nguyen has been dishonest because she must have known that the details were insufficient. She knew her responsibilities under the legislation and she failed to comply with them. It is no excuse that she was upset and found difficulty concentrating because of Dang’s illness.

62 Mr Wilson submitted that because Ms Nguyen had 16 months experience as a second hand dealer she should have been aware of her obligations under the Act and Regulations. If she could not continue to operate business because of her grief, she should have closed down. It was convenient for her to assume she was purchasing the goods at auction because there are fewer requirements and restrictions in these circumstances. She admitted in the interview that she knew she was not buying from auction.

Reasons and decision

63 The test in relation to unfairness and dishonesty is that the Director General must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities and in light of evidence acceptable to the Director-General, that Delta is (or was at the time) carrying on the licensed business in a dishonest or unfair manner.

64 The phrase “dishonest or unfair manner” appears in other consumer protection and licensing legislation but as far as I can ascertain, has not been the subject of detailed legal analysis. The Macquarie Dictionary, 3rd edition, defines “unfair” and “dishonest”, respectively as:

65 Firstly, I am satisfied on the evidence that Ms Nguyen was dishonest in the way she carried on her business on 1 September 1998. She dealt with the phones as if she had bought them from auction when she admitted that she had not bought them from auction. She tried to excuse her conduct by saying at the interview that she did not have any experience, when in fact she had over 16 months experience including as licensee of another second hand dealers shop. In relation to reference 481, she failed to record any information about the ownership of the phones, even though she says she was aware of her obligation to do so. In relation to references 480 and 481 she recorded incorrect addresses for the alleged owners of the phones. When these matters were brought to her attention, she said she made a mistake. She tried to cover herself by telling Departmental officers that two of the owners of the phones had been present on 1 September. After evidence was presented to her which demonstrated that this was not the case, she changed her story.

66 Ms Nguyen explains her behaviour in failing to adequately record the details required by the legislation as being due to the stress of Dang’s illness and her complete trust in Mr O. While these factors may have contributed to Ms N’s conduct, it is clear to me on the basis of all the evidence that she was experienced enough to know what her obligations were under the legislation. Nevertheless she failed to comply with those obligations, not in a minor or trivial sense, but in a fundamental sense.

67 Ms Nguyen was also carrying on the business unfairly. It was unfair to the purchasers of goods not to record ownership details correctly because those purchasers are then not protected from receiving stolen goods. Secondly victims of crime are not protected if their goods cannot be traced.

68 Ms Nguyen admitted that she failed to comply with a condition placed on her licence on 20 May 1999 to record transactions electronically. She complied with that condition on 26 August 1999, three months late. Pursuant to s 36 of the Act, once the Director General is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that any ground specified in a Notice to Show Cause has been made out, he may revoke the licence. The discretion given to the Director General in these circumstances is not limited in any way but it must be exercised consistently with the purpose and objects of the legislation.

69 By itself, a failure to comply with the condition in the circumstances outlined above would not, in my view, justify a decision to revoke a person’s licence. However it is a factor which, in combination with the other grounds relied on by the Director General, leads me to conclude that the decision to revoke Delta’s licence and not to grant a further licence for a period of 2 years is the correct and preferable decision.

70 The Director-General’s decision is affirmed.

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

Delta Trading Corporation Pty Limited v Director General, Department of Fair Trading [2000] NSWADT 132

Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

1

CITATION:	Delta Trading Corporation Pty Limited -v- Director General, Department of Fair Trading [2000] NSWADT 132
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Delta Tradin Corporation Pty Limited trading as Delta Loan Office RESPONDENT Director General, Department of Fair Trading
FILE NUMBER:	003225
HEARING DATES:	21 August 2000
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	08/21/2000
DATE OF DECISION:	09/15/2000
BEFORE:	Hennessy N (Deputy President)
APPLICATION:	Pawnbrokers & Second-Hand Dealers Act - second-hand dealers licence - grant of licence - Pawnbrokers & Second-Hand Dealers Act - second-hand dealers licence - revocation or suspension of licence - Second-Hand Dealers licence - grant of licence - Second-Hand Dealers licence - revocation or suspension of licence
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act 1996
CASES CITED:
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT P Khanhar, solicitor RESPONDENT A Wilson, solicitor
ORDERS:	The Director General’s decision to revoke the applicant’s licence and place a condition on its renewal is affirmed.