SETTLEMENT AGENTS SUPERVISORY BOARD and PARIDIS [2006] WASAT 292
| Link to Appeal : |
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2006] WASAT 292 | |
| SETTLEMENT AGENTS ACT 1981 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | VR:398/2005 | 27 JULY 2006 | |
| Coram: | JUDGE J CHANEY (DEPUTY PRESIDENT) MR J MANSVELD (MEMBER) MS C WINSOR (SESSIONAL MEMBER) | 22/09/06 | |
| 29 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | The respondent's real estate settlement agent licence suspended for 12 months Respondent ordered to pay costs | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | SETTLEMENT AGENTS SUPERVISORY BOARD KATHERINE MARIE ANNETTE PARIDIS |
Catchwords: | Settlement agents Disciplinary proceedings Whether Settlement Agents Act 1981(WA) and Settlement Agent's Code of Conduct 1982 have been breached Breach of s 46(2)(b) and s 49(6)(d) of the Settlement Agents Act 1981 Breach of r 15 of the Code of Conduct Settlement of leasehold property Trust account to be reconciled and certified in records on a monthly basis Failure to correctly reconcile a trust account is a serious breach of public trust Members of the public should be able to proceed with the assurance that their monies will be accounted for in a consistent and meticulous way by licensed settlement agents Object of disciplinary action is one of the protection of the public by maintaining the integrity of a profession |
Legislation: | Land Administration Act 1997 (WA) Real Estate and Business Agents Act 1978 (WA) Settlement Agents Act 1981 (WA), s 27, s 46, s 46(2)(b), s 49(6), s 49(6)(d), s 84, s 84(1), s 84(2)(c) Settlement Agents' Code of Conduct 1982, r 4, r 6A, r 15, Sch 1 |
Case References: | Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Grljusich v Andrews [2003] WASCA 206 Jaques v Pacific Acceptance Corp Ltd [1963] SR (NSW) 1066 Johnson v Sheppard [2005] WASCA 13 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee and Gandini [2006] WASAT 163 Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee and Lacerenza [2006] WASAT 177 Medical Board of Western Australia and Roberman [2005] WASAT 81 Re A Practitioner; Ex Parte The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal [2001] WASCA 204 Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan Kok Ming [1995] 2 AC 378 Story v National Companies & Securities Commission (1988) 13 ACLR 225 Nil |
Orders | 1. The respondent's licence and triennial certificate is to be suspended for 12 months, to commence on 24 November 2006.,2. The respondent is ordered to pay costs of $3000. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : VOCATIONAL REGULATION ACT : SETTLEMENT AGENTS ACT 1981 (WA) CITATION : SETTLEMENT AGENTS SUPERVISORY BOARD and PARIDIS [2006] WASAT 292 MEMBER : JUDGE J CHANEY (DEPUTY PRESIDENT)
- MR J MANSVELD (MEMBER)
MS C WINSOR (SESSIONAL MEMBER)
- Applicant
AND
KATHERINE MARIE ANNETTE PARIDIS
Respondent
Catchwords:
Settlement agents Disciplinary proceedings Whether Settlement Agents Act 1981(WA) and Settlement Agent's Code…
Continue reading Settlement Agents Supervisory Board and Paridis
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Settlement Agents Supervisory Board and Paridis [2006] WASAT 292
- Case
- [2006] WASAT 292
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Settlement Agents Supervisory Board brought an application against Paridis for alleged breaches of the Settlement Agents Act 1981 (WA) and the Settlement Agent's Code of Conduct 1982. The Board alleged that Paridis had failed to reconcile a trust account and certify it in records on a monthly basis, as required by the legislation and the Code. The dispute was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
The primary legal issues for the court to determine were whether the respondent had breached section 46(2)(b) and section 49(6)(d) of the Settlement Agents Act 1981, and whether they had breached rule 15 of the Code of Conduct. The court needed to assess whether the failure to reconcile the trust account was a serious breach of public trust, and whether it warranted disciplinary action to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the profession.
The court found that the failure to reconcile the trust account and certify it in records on a monthly basis was a serious breach of public trust. The court emphasised that members of the public must be able to proceed with the assurance that their monies will be accounted for in a consistent and meticulous way by licensed settlement agents. The object of disciplinary action is to protect the public by maintaining the integrity of the profession. Therefore, the court found that the breaches were serious enough to warrant suspension of the respondent's licence and triennial certificate for 12 months, commencing on 24 November 2006. The respondent was also ordered to pay costs of $3000.
The primary legal issues for the court to determine were whether the respondent had breached section 46(2)(b) and section 49(6)(d) of the Settlement Agents Act 1981, and whether they had breached rule 15 of the Code of Conduct. The court needed to assess whether the failure to reconcile the trust account was a serious breach of public trust, and whether it warranted disciplinary action to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the profession.
The court found that the failure to reconcile the trust account and certify it in records on a monthly basis was a serious breach of public trust. The court emphasised that members of the public must be able to proceed with the assurance that their monies will be accounted for in a consistent and meticulous way by licensed settlement agents. The object of disciplinary action is to protect the public by maintaining the integrity of the profession. Therefore, the court found that the breaches were serious enough to warrant suspension of the respondent's licence and triennial certificate for 12 months, commencing on 24 November 2006. The respondent was also ordered to pay costs of $3000.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The respondent's licence and triennial certificate is to be suspended for 12 months, to commence on 24 November 2006. 2. The respondent is ordered to pay costs of $3000.
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.