CACV 134 of 2006 Application for leave to appeal dismissed CACV 138 of 2006 Application for leave to appeal dismissed
A
PDF Version
Parties:
KATHERINE MARIE ANNETTE PARIDIS SETTLEMENT AGENTS SUPERVISORY BOARD
Catchwords:
Settlement agents Disciplinary proceedings Appeal against decision of State Administrative Tribunal to suspend settlement agent's licence and triennial certificate for 12 months and against order that agent pay Board's costs Whether Tribunal misconstrued the object of disciplinary action Whether Tribunal failed to take relevant factors into account in determination of appropriate disciplinary order and as a result imposed wrong disciplinary order Whether Tribunal erred in ordering agent to pay Board's costs Crossappeal against decision of Tribunal that certain allegations against agent had not been made out and against the disciplinary order imposed Principles governing the grant of leave to appeal under s 105(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) What constitutes a question of law within s 105(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act Whether s 105(13) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act applies to Board
[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.
Continue reading Paridis v Settlement Agents Supervisory Board
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Paridis v Settlement Agents Supervisory Board [2007] WASCA 97
Case
[2007] WASCA 97
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, Paridis, appealed against the decision of the State Administrative Tribunal to suspend their settlement agent's licence and triennial certificate for 12 months and against the order that they pay the Board's costs. The Board cross-appealed against the Tribunal's decision that certain allegations against the applicant had not been made out and against the disciplinary order imposed. The primary legal issues in this case were whether the Tribunal misconstrued the object of disciplinary action, failed to take relevant factors into account in determining the appropriate disciplinary order, and erred in ordering the applicant to pay the Board's costs. The secondary legal issues were the principles governing the grant of leave to appeal under s 105(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), what constitutes a question of law within s 105(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act, and whether s 105(13) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act applies to the Board.
The Court found that the Tribunal did not misconstrue the object of disciplinary action, nor did it fail to take relevant factors into account in determining the appropriate disciplinary order. The Court held that the Tribunal did not err in ordering the applicant to pay the Board's costs. The Court also found that the Tribunal's decision that certain allegations against the applicant had not been made out and the disciplinary order imposed were correct. The Court held that the principles governing the grant of leave to appeal under s 105(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act were correctly applied, and that what constitutes a question of law within s 105(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act was correctly determined. The Court found that s 105(13) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act did not apply to the Board.
The Court dismissed both the applicant's and the Board's applications for leave to appeal. The Court found that the applications did not raise a question of law and that the Tribunal's decisions were not erroneous. The Court held that the disciplinary orders imposed by the Tribunal were appropriate and that the costs order was also correct. The Court found that the principles governing the grant of leave to appeal were correctly applied, and that the Board was not subject to s 105(13) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act.