Hinton v Commissioner for Fair Trading

The case of Hinton v Commissioner for Fair Trading involves Mahevi Pty Ltd, its directors Peter Hinton and Ereca Hinton, and the Commissioner for Fair Trading. The dispute concerns allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct and breaches of professional standards by the defendants in relation to the sale of a property at 6 Collins Street. The Fair Trading Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the defendants had engaged in conduct that contravened the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 and the Fair Trading Act 1987, and whether disciplinary action should be taken against them.

The key legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the defendants had concealed a material fact about murders that occurred on the property, thereby inducing the purchasers to enter into a contract, and whether they had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by failing to disclose this information. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the defendants had acted honestly, fairly, and professionally, and whether Peter Hinton had failed to supervise the business of the corporation. The central issue was whether the non-disclosure of the murders constituted a material fact that would have influenced the decision of the purchasers, and whether the defendants' conduct was in breach of statutory and regulatory provisions.

The Tribunal found that the defendants had indeed concealed a material fact about the murders on the property, which influenced the purchasers to enter into the contract. This conduct was deemed to be misleading and deceptive under both the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 and the Fair Trading Act 1987. The Tribunal concluded that the defendants had failed to act honestly, fairly, and professionally, and that Peter Hinton had not adequately supervised the business. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that disciplinary action was warranted against the defendants for their breaches of the statutory and regulatory provisions.

In light of these findings, the Tribunal ordered a directions hearing to be held on 27 September 2006 at 9:30am. The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether further proceedings are necessary to address the issue of disciplinary action and to consider any reserved costs associated with the case.