Guo v Commissioner for Fair Trading - [2006] NSWADT 90

CITATION: Guo v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2006] NSWADT 90

DIVISION: General Division

PARTIES: APPLICANT
Jin Guo
RESPONDENT
Commissioner for Fair Trading, NSW Office of Fair Trading

FILE NUMBER: 053375

HEARING DATES: 15/02/2006

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 02/15/2006

DATE OF DECISION:
03/27/2006

BEFORE: Molony P - Judicial Member

CATCHWORDS: Valuer - registration of - Valuers Act - valuer - registration of

MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter

LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Corporations Law
Licensing and Registration (Uniform Procedures) Act 2002
Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997 (Cth)
Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognitition Act 1997 (NZ)
Valuers (Corresponding Laws) Order 2005
Valuers Act 2003

CASES CITED: Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Donald [2003] 2003 ALR 566
Comcare v Burton [1998] FCA 1144
Fletcher v Commissioner of Taxation of Commonwealth of Australia (1988) 84 ALR 295
Fletcher v F.C.T. (1988) 19 FCR 442
Lees v Comcare [1999] FCA 753
Re: Secretary, Department of Social Security v Hodgson (1992) 15 AAR 563
Taylor v Director-General, Department of Transport (GD) [2001] NSWADATP 29
Tutugri v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1785

REPRESENTATION:
APPLICANT
In person
RESPONDENT
J Coss, Solicitor

ORDERS: The decision of the Commissioner to refuse Mr Guo’s application for registration as a valuer under the Valuers Act 2003 is affirmed

Background

1 Mr Guo holds a double degree from the University of Auckland, comprising a Bachelor of Property and a Bachelor of Commerce, which he obtained in 2003. These qualifications are recognised by the New Zealand Valuers Registration Board as ones which, together with three years practical experience, will enable the holder to be registered as a valuer in New Zealand. Having had nearly two years practical experience with his employer in New Zealand since obtaining his degrees, Mr Guo was transferred to the company’s NSW office. Because he has not completed the requisite period of practical experience, he is not yet eligible for registration as a valuer in New Zealand.

2 On 26 May 2005 Mr Guo applied to be registered as a valuer under the Valuers Act 2003. That application was refused on 25 August 2005 on the basis that Mr Guo does not hold a qualification approved by the Commissioner for registration as a valuer in NSW. Mr Guo sought an internal review of the decision, in the course of which he made submissions that his qualifications from the University of Auckland were equivalent to those courses of study approved by the Commissioner as enabling registration in NSW.

3 Mr Philip Western, the Valuer General of NSW, wrote a letter supporting Mr Guo’s application, which was before the internal review officer. Mr Western wrote:

I wish to support Jin's application on the basis that the university qualifications held by Jin (Bachelor of Property; Bachelor of Commerce) are substantive property degrees attained through the University of Auckland. The degree of Bachelor of Property, in particular, is widely regarded in New Zealand as being…

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 Guo v Commissioner for Fair Trading 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: [2006] NSWADT 90
Decision Date: 03/27/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Guo v Commissioner for Fair Trading, the applicant, Mr Guo, sought registration as a valuer under the Valuers Act 2003. The Commissioner for Fair Trading had refused the application, prompting Mr Guo to appeal to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The crux of the matter lay in the Commissioner's decision to deny registration, which Mr Guo contested, arguing that he met all the necessary requirements.

The court was tasked with determining whether the Commissioner's decision was lawful and whether Mr Guo fulfilled the criteria for registration. This involved examining Mr Guo's qualifications and experience to ascertain if they met the standards set by the Valuers Act. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the Commissioner's decision was supported by proper evidence and if there were any procedural errors in the application process.

The court found that the Commissioner's decision was both lawful and justified. Mr Guo's qualifications and experience did not meet the requisite standards for registration under the Valuers Act. The court also confirmed that the Commissioner's decision-making process was fair and that the evidence supported the conclusion that Mr Guo did not meet the necessary requirements. As a result, the Supreme Court upheld the Commissioner's decision to refuse Mr Guo's application for registration.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision of the Commissioner to refuse Mr Guo’s application for registration as a valuer under the Valuers Act 2003 is affirmed

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.

CITATION:	Guo v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2006] NSWADT 90
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Jin Guo RESPONDENT Commissioner for Fair Trading, NSW Office of Fair Trading
FILE NUMBER:	053375
HEARING DATES:	15/02/2006
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	02/15/2006
DATE OF DECISION:	03/27/2006
BEFORE:	Molony P - Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS:	Valuer - registration of - Valuers Act - valuer - registration of
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Corporations Law Licensing and Registration (Uniform Procedures) Act 2002 Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997 (Cth) Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognitition Act 1997 (NZ) Valuers (Corresponding Laws) Order 2005 Valuers Act 2003
CASES CITED:	Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Donald [2003] 2003 ALR 566 Comcare v Burton [1998] FCA 1144 Fletcher v Commissioner of Taxation of Commonwealth of Australia (1988) 84 ALR 295 Fletcher v F.C.T. (1988) 19 FCR 442 Lees v Comcare [1999] FCA 753 Re: Secretary, Department of Social Security v Hodgson (1992) 15 AAR 563 Taylor v Director-General, Department of Transport (GD) [2001] NSWADATP 29 Tutugri v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1785
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT J Coss, Solicitor
ORDERS:	The decision of the Commissioner to refuse Mr Guo’s application for registration as a valuer under the Valuers Act 2003 is affirmed