RAPHAEL and COMMISSIONER FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS ACT 1973 (WA)
CITATION:   RAPHAEL and COMMISSIONER FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION [2020] WASAT 20
MEMBER:   MS P LE MIERE, MEMBER
MS C BARTON, MEMBER
MR A TOWNSEND, SESSIONAL MEMBER

HEARD:   14 NOVEMBER 2019
DELIVERED          :   12 FEBRUARY 2020
FILE NO/S:   VR 116 of 2019
BETWEEN:   ANTONIOUS BADIH RAPHAEL
Applicant
AND
COMMISSIONER FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION
Respondent

Catchwords:

Motor vehicle licensing - Salesperson's licence - Good character and repute - Whether fit to be holder of licence given issues of dishonesty

Legislation:

Motor Vehicle Dealers Act 1973 (WA), s 5(1), s 16(1)(b), s 16(1)(c), s 17, s 17(1), s 17(1)(a), s 17(1)(aa), s 17(1)(b), s 22(1), s 22(2), s 22(2)(c)
Motor Vehicle Repairers Act 2003 (WA)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 27

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Mr J Kitto
Respondent	:	Mr J Derby

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Kitto & Kitto Barristers And Solicitors
Respondent	:	Department of Mines Industry Regulation & Safety

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No 2) (1955) 93 CLR 127
Minniti v Motor Vehicle Industry Board [2011] WASCA 275
Mohamed v Director General- Department of Transport [2010] WASC 375
R v Hyde Justices (1912) 1 KB 645
Real Estate and Business Agents Supervisory Board v LJW [2011] WASCA 35
Registrar, Real Estate & Business Agents Supervisory Board v Barnett (Unreported, WASCA Library No 970426A, 26 August 1997

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

Mr Antonious Badih Raphael (applicant), on 13 May 2019, applied to the Commissioner for Consumer Protection (respondent) for a motor vehicle salesperson's licence (salesperson's licence).
On 2 July 2019 the respondent sent the applicant a letter stating its preliminary view that the respondent could not be satisfied that the applicant:
•was a person of good character and repute and a fit and proper person to hold a salesperson's licence;
•understood fully the duties and obligations imposed by the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act 1973 Act (WA) (Act) on a salesperson;
•had sufficient knowledge of the duties and obligations imposed on dealers and yard managers.[1]
[1] Respondent's book of documents at pages 8-10.
The applicant did not reply to the letter of 2 July 2019.
On 18 July 2019 the respondent made the decision to refuse the application for a salesperson's licence (Decision) and sent a letter to the applicant outlining the reasons for the Decision.[2]
[2] Respondent's book of documents at pages 11-12.
On 12 August 2019 the applicant filed an application with the Tribunal seeking a review of the Decision.

Legislative framework

Section 17 of the Act sets out the matters the respondent must be satisfied with before issuing a person with a salesperson's licence.
(1)Subject to this Act, a person who applies to the Commissioner in the approved form for a salesperson's licence and pays to the Commissioner the prescribed fee therefor shall be granted such a licence upon satisfying the Commissioner -
(a)of his identity; and
(aa)that he is of or over the age of 18 years; and
(b)that he is a person of good character and repute and a fit and proper person to hold such a licence; and
(c)that he understands fully the duties and obligations imposed by this Act on salespersons and has sufficient knowledge of the duties and obligations so imposed on dealers and yard managers; and
(d)that he is employed by a dealer who is licensed under this Act or that such a dealer is prepared to employ him as a salesperson.
The respondent does not dispute or take issue with the applicant's identity, that he is over the age of 18 or there is a dealer who is prepared to employ him as a salesperson. It is the further requirements, being the applicant's character and understanding of the duties imposed by the Act, that the respondent says he and the Tribunal cannot be satisfied with.
Section 22(1) of the Act permits a person aggrieved by a reviewable decision to apply to the Tribunal for a review of the decision.
Section 22(2) of the Act defines who is a person aggrieved. It is not disputed that the applicant is a person aggrieved.
Section 22(2)(c) of the Act defines a reviewable decision to include a decision of the respondent to refuse an application for an authorisation.
Pursuant to s 5(1) of the Act a salesperson's licence is an authorisation.
Thus the Decision is a reviewable decision. A hearing of a review of the Decision is a hearing de novo. It is helpful to set out in full s 27 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act) which governs the nature of review proceedings in the Tribunal.
(1)The review of a reviewable decision is to be by way of a hearing de novo, and it is not confined to matters that were before the decision maker but may involve the consideration of new material whether or not it existed at the time the decision was made.
(2)The purpose of the review is to produce the correct and preferable decision at the time of the decision upon the review.
(3)The reasons for decision provided by the decision maker, or any grounds for review set out in the application, do not limit the Tribunal in conducting a proceeding for the review of a decision.
The statement of issues, facts and contentions filed by the applicant suggest that the Tribunal's focus should be on whether or not the respondent committed an error(s) in law when making the Decision. This is clearly incorrect and counsel for the applicant accepted at the hearing that indeed what the Tribunal is required to do pursuant to s 27 of the SAT Act is to reach the correct and preferable decision on the information/evidence it has before it.

Issues

1)Is the applicant a person of good character and repute?
2)Is the applicant a fit and proper person to hold a salesperson's licence?
3)Does the applicant understand fully the duties and obligations imposed by the Act on a salesperson?
4)Does the applicant have sufficient knowledge of the duties and obligations imposed on dealers and yard managers by the Act?

Facts

The following facts are not contested by the respondent.
The applicant is 49 years of age and has worked in the motor industry buying and selling cars from about 1994 to 2018.[3] Until the hearing before the Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC) in 2014 the applicant had an unblemished record.
[3] Applicant's witness statement at paras 5-13.
On 15 May 2009 the applicant was granted and continues to hold an individual motor vehicle repairer's licence under the Motor Vehicle Repairers Act 2003 (WA) in the categories of Paintwork and Panel Beating Work.
On 4 August 1997 the applicant was appointed a director of Raphael House Pty Ltd (RH).
On or about 16 September 1997 RH was granted a motor vehicle dealer's licence under the Act and commenced trading under the registered business name Cannington Waterhouse.
On 25 November 2011 the applicant was appointed a director of Car Sales WA Pty Ltd (CSWA).
On 15 March 2012 CSWA was granted a motor vehicle dealer's licence under the Act and commenced trading under the business name Car Sales WA.
In 2014 the applicant was the person primarily responsible for the inspection and licencing of motor vehicles purchased for the purpose of resale by RH and CSWA.
On 24 January 2017, the CCC published its 'Report on the Activities of Certain Vehicle Examiners Contracted by the Department of Transport' (CCC Report), which identified evidence of serious misconduct by authorised vehicle examiners - including Mr Alfonso Berardis, a proprietor of Favazzos Engine Reconditioning & Service Centre (Favazzos), who passed vehicles as suitable to be licensed without inspecting the vehicles (Berardis misconduct).
In evidence before the CCC the applicant denied any involvement in the Berardis misconduct, and claimed all vehicles RH or CSWA sought to have inspected were driven to, and inspected at, Favazzos or alternatively were inspected at the applicant's business premises.
The CCC concluded in the CCC Report that the evidence overwhelmingly established that RH and CSWA did not deliver vehicles to Favazzos for inspection on many occasions and did not attend the applicant's premises to inspect any vehicles.
On or about 26 June 2017 RH submitted to the respondent an application to renew its motor vehicle dealer's licence.
The renewal licence was signed by two directors of RH including the applicant.
In answer to the question on the application for renewal form which stated, 'Since the last application had the licensee or any Partner or Director of the licensee been the subject of any adverse findings by a Government Board, Tribunal or Agency?', RH stated 'no'.
On 30 June 2017 RH's motor vehicle dealer's license expired while an application to renew that license was pending.
Following the expiry of the RH's licence on 30 June 2017, RH's business was transferred to CSWA.
On or about 19 January 2018 the applicant resigned as a director of RH.
Following proceedings in the Tribunal, on 5 February 2018, the respondent refused RH's application to renew its motor vehicle dealer's licence on the ground, specifically relating to the applicant, that not all of the persons concerned in the management or conduct of RH were persons of good character and repute and persons fit to be concerned in the management or control of the business of buying or selling vehicles.
On 5 June 2018 the Tribunal upheld the respondent's decision to refuse to renew RH's licence (RH proceedings).
In the course of the RH proceedings, RH agreed that the applicant was not a person of good character and repute and fit to be concerned in the management or control of RH's business.
In the RH proceedings, Ms Suzanne Pano as a director of RH and CSWA agreed that the applicant was not a person of good character and repute and fit to be concerned in the management or control of RH's business. Relevantly the Tribunal found that the role proposed by RH was to buy and sell vehicles for RH.
The Tribunal in the RH proceedings determined that for the applicant to buy and sell cars for RH as outlined would mean he would be involved in the conduct of RH's business.
RH transferred its business to CSWA when renewal of its corporate motor vehicle dealer's licence was refused.
On or about 19 June 2018 the applicant resigned as a director of CSWA.
On 19 March 2019 the applicant applied to the respondent for a motor vehicle yard manager's licence.
On 9 May 2019 the respondent sent to the applicant a letter stating the preliminary view that the respondent could not be satisfied that the applicant satisfied s 16(1)(b) and (c) of the Act. On 13 May 2019 the applicant withdrew his application.
On 13 May 2019 the applicant applied for the salesperson's licence the subject of these proceedings.

The hearing

Before the Tribunal at hearing was a bundle of documents filed by the respondent on 10 September 2019 which was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 1.
Exhibit 1 relevantly included transcript of the evidence the applicant gave to the CCC and the CCC Report (authority for the dissemination and use of these materials was allowed by the CCC).
The applicant also gave evidence (the applicant's witness statement is Exhibit 2) and was crossexamined.

The respondent's submissions

The respondent contends that by reason of the applicant's past conduct in the involvement in the Berardis misconduct he is not a person of good character and repute and a fit and proper person to hold a salesperson's licence.
It also contends the applicant does not:
•understand fully the duties and obligations imposed by the Act on a salesperson; and/or
•have sufficient knowledge of the duties and obligations imposed on dealers and yard managers.
The respondent does not dispute the applicant's identity (s 17(1)(a) of the Act) or that he is over the age of 18 years (s 17(1)(aa) of the Act).

The applicant's submissions

The applicant's position at hearing was that the issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a salesperson's licence.
The applicant relied upon his passing of the Motor Vehicle Yard Manager/Dealer Correspondence Licensing Requirements Course with a mark of 98% to show that he had sufficient knowledge of the duties and obligations imposed on dealers and yard managers and the duties and obligations imposed by the Act on a salesperson.
The applicant submitted that he was remorseful and accepted that he had done the wrong thing when it came to 'facilitating taking shortcuts to get the inspections done'.[4] He further said that he accepts and is sorry that about 19 vehicles were licenced not using the proper procedures.[5]
[4] Applicant's witness statement (Exhibit 1) page 12 at para 15.
[5] Applicant's witness statement (Exhibit 1) at paras 14-16.
The applicant submitted that the Tribunal could be satisfied that members of the public would be adequately protected if he was given a salesperson's licence because he would not deal directly with members of the public and was prepared to agree to conditions on his salesperson's licence that would ensure that he did not do so.

The Tribunal's consideration

The RH proceedings

The Tribunal has not heard that the position that the applicant will hold or the functions he will perform will be in any way materially different to that proposed to the Tribunal in the RH proceedings.
The Tribunal accepts the admission made by Ms Pano in the RH proceedings was that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to be involved in the management of CSWA and that that is a different role from being a salesperson. The Tribunal acknowledges that the findings by the Tribunal in the RH proceedings were, as the applicant's counsel submitted, that his involvement in the management of CSWA was based on his influence as a family member.
The only difference in the applicant's proposed role as a salesperson from his previous role in which he was found to have acted dishonestly in the CCC Report (by inference only), is that he will not be responsible for the licencing of vehicles.

The applicant's knowledge of the Berardis misconduct.

The question as to the applicant's fundamental honesty and fitness to be involved in the buying and selling of motor vehicles is very much a live one.
During the course of the proceedings the applicant appeared to be unable or unwilling to answer a question in a straight forward manner. An example of this was in cross-examination:
DERBY, MR: In that paragraph [referring to the applicant's witness statement] you also refer to facilitating taking shortcuts? - - - Not in - in a respect of the vehicles' roadworthiness. In a respect of the - the trip there and stuff. I found that out.
How did - how did you - how did you facilitate taking shortcuts, because that's what you say in that paragraph? - - - I didn't facilitate it. I have one – the staff member I caught, I've said, did – 'did cars get inspected or not?' and then I found out that it was – he come and looked at some and not others and - - -
So your evidence is now that you didn't facilitate the taking of shortcuts? - - - Sorry?
Your evidence is that you did not facilitate taking shortcuts, contrary to this paragraph? - - - I - I'm bad with names and so can I have your name?
Mr Derby? - - - Mr Derby, where you coming from, mate? Like, what do you want me to say? I've admitted - - -
I'm asking - - -? - - - I've admitted I'm gratefully - remorsefully doing it, but where you - what - want me to do? What - what do you - - -
Well, I'm - - -? - - - What do you want?
(ts 41, 14 November 2019)
In his witness statement it is the Tribunal's view that the applicant attempted to play down the significance of his involvement in the Berardis misconduct.
The Tribunal considers the evidence the applicant gave in the CCC hearings showed a willingness to not be truthful (under oath) with respect to his part in the Berardis misconduct. The Tribunal has come to this conclusion not just from the admission made by his counsel (ts 80, 14 November 2019) but from comparing the evidence the applicant gave in the CCC hearing with the findings made in the CCC Report and with the evidence he gave in this hearing. Below are some examples.
Initially when questioned in the CCC about whether or not vehicles from CSWA where being taken to Favozzos to be inspected, the applicant claimed they were. When pressed by counsel assisting the CCC on whether it was even possible the vehicles could have been delivered to Favozzos given the number of vehicles that were being passed on a single day, the applicant provided a number of explanations, one of which was that Mr Berardis attended CSWA premises and conducted the inspections there.
The applicant was then played a tape recording of a phone conversation he had with Mr Berardis on 20 June 2014 at 11.19 am in which Mr Berardis asked for instructions on to how to get to CSWA. Later during a Public Examination of the applicant he was played a tape recording of a phone conversation he had with Mr Berardis on 20 June 2014 at 8.51 am in which Mr Berardis confirmed he had never been to CSWA premises in Welshpool; transcript of CCC Public Examination 12.11.2015 page 79.
When answering questions as to what he knew about the arrangement his young employee Ms H had with Mr Berardis to have vehicles licenced without presenting them for inspection, the applicant said the following:
[W]hat the relationship that was going on, I haven't - I haven't got a clue.
…
I've - I've - I might have queried it in my own mind I didn't know about it directly because if I knew about it [I] would have stopped it.
In answer to counsel assisting's question 'You say that in 2014 you were totally unaware that [Ms H] was doing that right, you only had a query in your head?' the applicant answered, 'That's exactly right'; transcript of CCC Public Examination 12.11.2015 page 80.
In his private testimony before the CCC earlier on 1 September 2015 in answer to questions as to whether, after the investigators from the CCC had attended his business premises, he had asked Ms H about whether she had been taking the vehicles to be inspected at Favazzos, the applicant gave a variety of answers to the effect that he had not; transcript of CCC Private Examination 01.09.2015 pages 35-39.
The applicant continued to deny he was aware of the Berardis misconduct and Ms H's involvement in it from the commencement of these proceedings until almost the conclusion of these proceedings.
When asked by his counsel in re-examination about his knowledge of the misconduct the following interchange took place:
KITTO, MR: … All right. Well, this is the vital question: was it a case of you didn't want to ask because you - you didn't want to ask [Ms H] whether she was encouraging the corruption because you were scared of what you were going to find out, or was it the case that you thought it wasn't going on, or was it the case that you knew it was going on and you thought if you asked her, you would have to bring it to a stop? - - - The last one.
Right. So to be entirely honest with this tribunal, you knew that she was, your employee, facilitating the corruption. Is that correct? - - - I caught wind of it, yes.
I will ask the question to you: as soon as you found about it, why didn't you do something to stop it? - - - That's what I regret too late, Mr Kitto. I should have stopped - - -
I know you regret it. The question is why didn't you do something to stop it? - - - Because everywhere else I went to license cars was a major operation to license them. And I don't want to bring in old news, but I was tarnished with the same brush as someone very close to me.
All right. So does the tribunal understand your evidence to be you weighed up the consequences of letting corrupt conduct continue and you weighed that against financial benefit, and you elected to let it continue. You turned a blind eye to it. That's what you did, wasn't it? - - - I did that. But I wasn't - I wasn't licensing any vehicles that were never meant to be licensed. The - - -
No, no. Stop justifying. I'm just asking you? - - - ...
Well, it was driven by financial considerations, wasn't it? You knew that if you called out [Ms H] on it and we had to get Berardis to physically come look at the cars, it was going to take more time and slow down the licensing process. It's as simple as that, isn't it? - - - Yes.
(ts 64, 14 November 2019)

This was the first time the applicant admitted that he knew of the Berardis misconduct and did not take any steps to stop it. The applicant however continued to deny that he had any part in setting up or organising Ms H's part in the Berardis misconduct.

Ms H's part in the Berardis misconduct

Ms H was not called to give evidence. It was at all times the applicant's position that he was not the instigator of the Berardis misconduct and nor did he oversee it or have any involvement in it.
The Tribunal accepts the submission made by the respondent that it can be satisfied that as Ms H was not called to give evidence she could not have provided evidence to assist the applicant.
This is highly relevant. It is the applicant's position that he was not the instigator of the Berardis misconduct and that it was all organised between Ms H and Mr Berardis or with another person at Favazzos.
In the applicant's closing submission he submitted that had the applicant been an instigator of the Berardis misconduct it would elevate the applicant's offending.
Ms H at the time of Berardis misconduct was a young woman of around 25 years of age in a minor administrative position. The Tribunal was not told of any disciplinary action taken against Ms H as a result of her part in the Berardis misconduct. Ms H remains in the employ of the applicant (or more specifically, of his family company) and is involved in the licencing of vehicles.
The applicant's attempt to blame Ms H for his involvement in the Berardis misconduct and downplay his part in the scheme is reprehensible and shows a lack of insight into his personal misconduct.
The Tribunal does not believe that Ms H would have, without the approval of her direct supervisor, the applicant, participated in the Berardis misconduct which was dishonest and fraudulent.
The Tribunal is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Ms H's part in the Berardis misconduct was with the approval of the applicant. The Tribunal further finds that the applicant's evidence to the CCC and the Tribunal, stating that the extent of his involvement in the Berardis misconduct consisted of turning a 'blind eye' to it, was untruthful.

The applicant's witness statement

The applicant was asked about the statement in his witness statement at para 19 (Exhibit 1, page 14) that 19 vehicles had been passed by Favazzos but had not been inspected. The evidence before the CCC was that 29 vehicles had been passed by Favazzos without being inspected and of those which were inspected, only 17 passed on the first occasion, four passed after reinspection and one failed reinspection; Exhibit 1, page 232.
The applicant agreed when shown the CCC report that it must have been 29 vehicles that were not inspected but did not retreat from his position that his involvement in the Berardis misconduct had not jeopardised public safety. The applicant continued to attempt to justify his actions by asserting there were no real negative consequences of the Berardis misconduct as all the vehicles had passed the reinspection.

Conclusion

The Tribunal needs to be satisfied that the applicant is both 'of good character and repute' and 'a fit and proper person' to hold a salesperson's licence. Whilst the criteria as to meaning of 'fit and proper' is not the same as 'of good character and repute' they overlap to a significant degree.[6]
[6] Real Estate and Business Agents Supervisory Board v LJW [2011] WASCA 35.
The expression 'good character' is frequently referred to as an aspect of whether a person is 'fit and proper'; it is not the same thing.[7] The expression 'fit and proper' has been considered many times by courts in regulatory matters.[8] In general the courts have emphasised that the test has to be seen in the subject matter of the act to which it applies[9] and is in essence a notion of moral quality.
[7] Mohamed v Director General- Department of Transport [2010] WASC 375 at [28]
[8] R v Hyde Justices (1912) 1 KB 645 at 664; Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No 2) (1955) 93 CLR 127; Registrar, Real Estate & Business Agents Supervisory Board v Barnett (Unreported, WASCA Library No 970426A, 26 August 1997).
[9] Minniti v Motor Vehicle Industry Board [2011] WASCA 275 at [25].
It is clear from the statutory scheme that the motor vehicle dealer's industry is regulated for the protection of the public, particularly the section that buys and sells motor vehicles through dealers, and that honesty and integrity are required of a licensed motor vehicle dealer in the conduct of its business.
The applicant focused in his submissions on the issue of whether in granting him a salesperson's licence there was any risk to the public. He further submitted that if the Tribunal was concerned about any risk to the public it could be reassured because he was accepting of conditions that would prevent him from dealing directly with the public.
The respondent, in the Tribunal's view, rightly so, submitted that the test of whether a person was fit and proper to hold a motor vehicle salesperson's licence cannot be changed or lowered by the imposition of conditions.
The applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal that was contrary to the evidence he gave before the CCC. This can be seen from the examples set out above and from an admission made by his counsel at the conclusion of the hearing; ts 80, 14 November 2019.
The applicant also gave conflicting evidence to the Tribunal. At the commencement of his evidence his position was that he did not know about the Berardis misconduct; then that he had a suspicion and finally that he knew about the Berardis misconduct and did nothing about it.
The applicant further admitted that he was involved in or took no steps to stop the Berardis misconduct for commercial gain.
It is significant to the Tribunal, that in his evidence to the Tribunal the applicant did not, at the first opportunity, resile from his original position in the CCC proceedings that he knew nothing of the Berardis misconduct and did not admit his part in or alternatively his knowledge of the Berardis misconduct.
The consideration for the Tribunal as to whether the applicant is now a person of good character and repute not only concerns the applicant's involvement in the Berardis misconduct as found by the CCC Report but also his conduct before the Tribunal.
The applicant in closing submissions referred to previous decisions of this Tribunal where persons with significant criminal histories including dishonesty and violence where found by the Tribunal to be, when the Tribunal made its decision, of good character and repute and fit and proper to hold a salesperson's licence.
The Tribunal agrees with the applicant's counsel's submission that a person has to have insight into the wrongfulness of his or her conduct before he or she can be truly remorseful and contrite for that conduct; ts 75, 14 November 2019.
A person also needs insight into the wrongfulness of his or her conduct for the Tribunal to have any confidence that the person will not engage in dishonest conduct, albeit in a different way, again.
Again we accept and agree with the applicant's counsel's submission that people learn from their mistakes and what the Tribunal needs to do in this matter is consider if the applicant has learnt from his mistakes or still has a propensity to be dishonest.
In the previous decisions of this Tribunal to which we were referred, the Tribunal found that the parties had learnt from their mistakes and was confident that at the time of the hearings, given the licences applied for, that they were of good character and repute and fit and proper to hold those licences.
The Tribunal in those matters made its own determination as to each applicant's insight, determined that at that point in time that each applicant had learnt from his or her mistakes and then as the counsel of one of the applicants phrased it, 'redemption had kicked in'.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is truly remorseful for his conduct as opposed to being sorry because of the consequences he has faced since the publication of the CCC Report.
Contrary to the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal does not consider the applicant has admitted his past conduct or accepted the seriousness of it. He was not concerned to acquaint himself with the correct number of vehicles that RH or CSWA had had licenced without being examined. He was dismissive of the fact that some of the vehicles that were reexamined did not pass. He appeared to have no concern for the risk to public safety that his actions or inaction had caused.
The Tribunal finds the applicant's conduct in the Tribunal proceedings shows a willingness to disregard his oath to tell the truth and a lack of insight and remorse into his past involvement in the Berardis misconduct.
Section 17 of the Act requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the applicant is both a person of good character and repute and a fit and proper person to hold a salesperson's licence.
The Tribunal considers the applicant's lack of honesty and candour with respect to his involvement in the Berardis misconduct and this lack of insight and real remorse means it cannot be satisfied that, at the present time, he is a person of good character and repute. He has therefore not satisfied the first limb of s 17(1)(b) of the Act.
The Tribunal is hopeful that this decision will assist the applicant in understanding the importance of candour and honesty so that some time in the future he will be found to satisfy all of the criteria of s 17(1) of the Act.

Orders

The Tribunal orders:
1.The decision dated 18 July 2019 of the Commissioner for Consumer Protection is affirmed.
2.The application is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
MS P LE MIERE, MEMBER
12 FEBRUARY 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established