Paridis v Settlement Agents Supervisory Board

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.