Trlin v Commissioner of Fair Trading
[2003] NSWADT 222
•09/24/2003
CITATION: Trlin v Commissioner of Fair Trading [2003] NSWADT 222 DIVISION: General Division PARTIES: APPLICANT
John Louis Trlin
RESPONDENT
Commissioner of Fair TradingFILE NUMBER: 033103 HEARING DATES: 02/07/2003 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 07/02/2003 DATE OF DECISION:
09/24/2003BEFORE: Molony P - Judicial Member APPLICATION: Motor Dealer - grant of licence - Motor Dealers Act - motor dealer - grant of licence MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Motor Dealers Act 1974CASES CITED: Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
Clearihan v Registrar of Motor Vehicle Dealers in the Australian Capital Territory (1994) 122 ACTR 25
Haining v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service (1999) NSWADT 6
Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No. 2) (1955) 93 CLR 127
Law Society of NSW v Bannister (unreported Court of Appeal, 27 August 1993, BC930181)
Raymond Robbins v Business Licensing Authority (2000) VCAT 457
Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board 20 SASR 70
Trlin v Department of Fair Trading [1999] NSWADT 72
Trlin v Director-General, Department of Fair Trading [2000] NSWADT 192REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
A Healey, barrister
RESPONDENT
A Wilson, solicitorORDERS: The Tribunal sets aside the decision of the Administrator made on 17 March 2003 to refuse the Applicant a dealer licence under the Motor Dealers Act 1974. The Tribunal substitutes that decision with a determination that, upon payment of the prescribed licence fee, John Louis Trlin be granted a dealer licence under the Motor Dealers Act 1974 authorising him to carry on business as a motor dealer at 2 Acres Road, Kellyville upon the conditions set out in the letter from the Baulkham Hills Shire Council to Mr Trlin dated 18 February 1998.
Introduction
1 On 7 December 2002, John Louis Trlin (the Applicant) applied for a dealer licence under the Motor Dealers Act 1974. On 23 January 2003, the Commissioner of Fair Trading (the Administrator) refused to grant the Applicant a dealer’s licence. The Applicant sought an internal review of that decision. On 17 March 2003 the decision was affirmed on internal review. This application for review of that decision was lodged with the Tribunal on 17 April 2003.
2 S.12 of the Motor Dealers Act 1974 sets out the grounds upon which the Administrator may grant or refuse an application for a licence. Relevantly, it provides:
3 S.20F of the Motor Dealers Act 1974 provides for the review of decisions of the Administrator to refuse to issue a licence:
Where the Administrator determines to issue a licence, the licence may be issued subject to conditions or restrictions: s.14 Motor Dealers Act 1974 .
(1) Subject to subsections (2), (4), (5), (6) and (8), the Director-General shall grant an application for a licence.
(2) An application for a licence made by a natural person shall be refused if it appears to the Director-General that:
(3) Without affecting the generality of subsection (2) (g), the Director-General may, in determining whether an applicant is not a fit and proper person to be the holder of a licence, have regard (if such be the case) to the fact that the applicant:
(a) …
(e) the applicant is not a person likely to carry on such a business honestly and fairly,
(f) …
(g) the applicant is in any other way not a fit and proper person to be the holder of a licence, or
(h) …
(4) …
(a) …
(d) has, at any time, been convicted of an offence against this Act or the regulations or any other enactment administered by the Minister.
(6) An application for a licence may be refused if:
(7) Where an application for a licence is refused, the Director-General shall forthwith, by notice in writing served on the applicant, inform the applicant of the refusal and of the ground on which the refusal is based and, where the application was accompanied by the prescribed fee for the licence, the Director-General shall, as soon as practicable, refund to the applicant that fee.
(a) some other licence is in force in respect of a place of business, or any part of a place, to which the application relates, or
(b) the carrying on of the business at that place or part of a place is, for any reason, unlawful.
(8) An application for a licence shall not be granted until the applicant has paid to the Director-General the prescribed fee (which may include an initial contribution to the Fund) for the licence.
(9) …
4 It is the Tribunal’s task in determining the review to make the correct and preferable decision. S.63 ADTA provides:
This provision combines with s.38 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 ( ADTA ) to give the Tribunal jurisdiction to review the Administrator’s decisions.
(1) If the Director-General:
the applicant for the licence, the person who held the licence or the person disqualified (as the case may be) may apply to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal for a review of the decisions of the Director-General.
(a) refuses to grant an application for, or suspends or (under any provision of this Act) cancels, a licence, or
(b) imposes a condition or restriction under section 13, or
(c) imposes a disqualification referred to in section 20E (1) (d),
(2) On an application for a review of a decision of the Director-General to refuse to grant a licence to a person because of a fact referred to in section 12 (3) or (5), the Administrative Decisions Tribunal may determine that the fact should be ignored on one or more of the following grounds:
(a) the triviality of the acts or omissions giving rise to the offence concerned,
(b) the time that has passed since the offence concerned was committed,
(c) the subsequent good behaviour of the offender,
(d) any other ground prescribed by the regulations.
Background to the Application
(1) In determining an application for a review of a reviewable decision, the Tribunal is to decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material then before it, including the following:
(2) For this purpose, the Tribunal may exercise all of the functions that are conferred or imposed by any relevant enactment on the administrator who made the decision.
(a) any relevant factual material,
(b) any applicable written or unwritten law.
(3) In determining an application for the review of a reviewable decision, the Tribunal may decide:
(a) to affirm the reviewable decision, or
(b) to vary the reviewable decision, or
(c) to set aside the reviewable decision and make a decision in substitution for the reviewable decision it set aside, or
(d) to set aside the reviewable decision and remit the matter for reconsideration by the administrator in accordance with any directions or recommendations of the Tribunal.
5 In 1986, the Applicant was a director of the following companies that also held dealer licences:
(iii) that consists of contraventions of the said Act and the Consumer Protection Act 1969;
On 2 June 1986, those companies entered into a Deed of Undertaking pursuant to s.20J of the Motor Dealers Act 1974 with the then Commissioner for Consumer Affairs, pursuant to which they made various undertakings, the effect of which were that they would conduct their businesses in an honest, fair and transparent manner according to law. The deed recited that, among other things:
a. John L. Pty Ltd;
b. Trueline Motors Pty Ltd;
c. Galaxie Motors Pty Ltd; and
d. Lease Acceptance Pty Ltd.
(c) it has appeared to the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs that each of the above companies has, in the course of the said business within the meaning of section 20 J of the Motor Dealers Act, 1974 repeatedly engaged in unjust conduct within the meaning of section 20I of that Act, in the form of conduct
(i) that is dishonest or unfair
(ii) that consists of acts and omissions in breach of contract, and
6 Subsequently, the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs issued a number of show cause notices directed to John L Pty Ltd, calling on it to show cause why its dealer licence should not be cancelled as a result of various alleged breaches of the Motor Dealers Act 1974 . On 30 December 1986, the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs determined to cancel the licence of John L Pty Ltd, and disqualified the Applicant, as a director of that company, from holding a licence or being involved in the management or direction of any company holding a licence for 5 years from 14 January 1987.
being the conduct particularised in the Schedule hereto;
7 That decision was appealed to the Commercial Tribunal. The Appellants to that appeal, including the present Applicant, did not give evidence to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that:
8 In affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs the Tribunal found (at page 41-42 of its reasons):
a. John L Motors, having acquired vehicles on consignment, failed to comply with the Motor Dealers Act 1974 by (at page 30 of its reasons):
b. John L Motors Pty Ltd engaged in a practice which the Tribunal described as ‘talking down’ the prices it paid to vendors of vehicles placed with it for sale. The Tribunal described this practice thus (at page 34 of its reasons) :
(a) failing to keep a dealer's register in respect of those vehicles, as required under sec. 21(5)(a) of the Motor Dealers Act, 1974;
(b) entering into a dealer's register required to be kept in accordance with sec. 21(2) particulars in respect of those vehicles, in contravention of sec. 21(5)(c) of the Act;
(c) failing to open at and maintain with a bank or banks in New South Wales a trust account in respect of those motor vehicles in contravention of sec. 29E(1) of the Act; and
(d) failing to account to Paul Goodman, Peter Logan, Steven Scott, Lindsay Moulston and Michael Beckwith for the proceeds of sale of consignment vehicles within 14 days after the date of sale of the vehicle, in contravention of sec. 29H of the Act.
There were ten instances of this conduct alleged. The Tribunal found:
… There was a pattern of behaviour involving at least three salesmen by which vendors, having been induced to leave their vehicles with John L for sale at a stated price, were "talked down" into accepting a lower price. The vendors reduced their price as a result of what was later established to be blatant falsehoods by the salesmen concerned.
The "talking down" was unfair and dishonest. It had been going on for a long time. A number of John L’s salesmen, including Rochester, Smith and Hardy, employed this dishonest method of transacting business and they used it frequently. Rochester and Smith were still employed at the date of the Second Show Cause Notice and the evidence establishes they were still in John L's employment in December 1986. The Commissioner had no reason to believe that such a pattern of dishonesty extending over a long period would cease overnight. Nor have we. The existence of this unfair and dishonest pattern of doing business at the time the second Show Cause Notice issued was not rebutted by any evidence presented by the Appellants.
The vendors were told there was a ready buyer then at John L's premises. A reduced price would clinch the deal. Adherence to the original price would abort the transaction.
In fact, the evidence later established the vehicle had nearly always been sold by the dealer at the original advertised price, often ten days or more, prior to the "talking down.". The dealer gained an extra margin on the deal to the detriment of the original owner. We consider. this particularly reprehensible since John L was, we are satisfied, acting as agent for purposes of resale and had a duty in the circumstances to be particularly frank and scrupulous in its dealings with the owners.
9 As a consequence of the decision being affirmed Trueline Motors Pty Ltd, Galaxie Motors Pty Ltd and Lease Acceptance Pty Ltd were required to surrender their licences as the Applicant and Mr Daly were directors of them.
The Tribunal has found that John L's behaviour, particularly in regard to the re-negotiations, was unfair, dishonest and probably criminal. Such conduct was repeated time and time again. John L took profits from the re-negotiations which in many cases, were considerable. The Tribunal is satisfied that directors Trlin and Daly had knowledge of the renegotiations and the statements made by John L salesmen about the nature of the agreements between the owners and John L and that they approved of the salesmen's conduct. They have not denied this.
10 In 1987, the Applicant unsuccessfully applied for a dealer licence in Queensland.
11 On 29 October 1991, the Applicant became bankrupt. On 30 October 1994, he was discharged from bankruptcy.
12 On 8 July 1996, the Applicant was charged with being an unlicensed motor dealer in breach of s.9(1)(a) of the Motor Dealers Act 1974. The charge was heard at the Blacktown Local Court. The offence was found proven, but dismissed pursuant to s.556A of the Crimes Act upon the Applicant entering into a recognizance to be of good behaviour for 12 months with a self surety of $1,000.00.
13 On 25 May 1998, the Applicant applied for a dealer licence under the Motor Dealers Act 1974. The Administrator refused that application on 14 December 1998. That decision was affirmed on internal review on 23 April 1999. The Applicant then applied to this Tribunal to review that decision. His appeal was heard on 18 August 1999. The Applicant represented himself at that hearing.
14 In its reasons for decision Trlin v Department of Fair Trading [1999] NSWADT 72, the Tribunal found that in completing the application for a dealer licence the Applicant had:
15 The Tribunal affirmed the Administrator’s decision to refuse the Applicant a dealer's licence. In doing so, the Tribunal said:
The Tribunal concluded that by omitting these details (at paragraph 20):
a. failed to disclose his failed application for a dealer licence in Queensland;
b. failed to disclose the previous cancellation and disqualification form obtaining a dealer licence in NSW; and
c. failed to disclose his bankruptcy, yet attached the certificate of discharge.
… At best Mr Trlin exhibited, in completing the application form, a total incapacity to accurately and carefully complete it. At worst his conduct was dishonest and misleading in the way in which he completed his application form for the licence. Given the context in which this application was made and the importance of this document to Mr Trlin's future business the Tribunal does not accept that Mr Trlin is simply incapable of filling in the form. The Tribunal finds that Mr Trlin was deliberately dishonest and misleading in the manner in which he completed the application for the licence.
16 The Applicant appealed against the Tribunal’s decision to affirm the refusal to issue him a dealer’s licence, but subsequently withdrew that appeal.
21. In considering the extent to which these matters suggest that Mr Trlin is likely to carry on business honestly and fairly, or is in any other way not a fit and proper person the Tribunal has considered the statutory scheme of the Motor Dealers Act 1974 and the purpose for which the licence is held. The Motor Dealers Act 1974 sets out a scheme for the licensing of motor dealer and other related dealers. It provides for the granting of licences, requires licensees to keep certain records, imposes certain obligations on motor dealers in relation to motor vehicles offered or displayed for sale or sold by the motor dealer, sets out a dispute resolution scheme involving the Director-General of the Department of Fair Trading in relation to disputes arising in connection with the sale of motor vehicles and establishes a Motor Dealers Compensation Fund to protect consumers.
22 A vitally important part of the statutory scheme is the keeping of accurate records and registers of the sale and consignment of vehicles. Motor vehicle dealers are also expected to have high standards in relation to the keeping of trust account monies and other financial account keeping. Most customers are ordinary members of the public who often have little technical knowledge and, in purchasing a vehicle, are entering into one of their most important and expensive purchases. For this reason consumers are protected by the provisions of the Motor Dealers Act 1974 and the industry has clear provisions which guide its operation. In this context the Applicants past conduct, his conduct in wrongly completing his application for the licence and admissions in evidence before the Tribunal are significant and relevant matters. The Applicant by his own admission said that he is incapable of accurately completing forms and has difficulty with record keeping and finding relevant business documents. The Applicant in his evidence to the Tribunal appeared vague as to his business details, unable to locate relevant documents or even to understand their contents relative to the licence application and the requirements of the Motor Dealers Act 1974. The Tribunal does not accept that Mr Trlin has the ability or capacity to comply with the detailed requirements of the Act in relation to the keeping of appropriate records and accounts.
23 The Tribunal has taken all of the above matters in to account and is of the view that the decision refusing Mr Trlin the grant of the dealers licence should be affirmed. The Tribunal has weighed Mr Trlin's claims, his expertise in the industry and the evidence of his good character and contribution to community activities. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Trlin has suffered greatly from the loss of his licence and other business interests. The Tribunal has also considered that the actions for which Mr Trlin was disqualified from holding a licence, occurred over twelve years ago and that in his own words he has `paid the price' of those actions.
24 Nonetheless the cumulative weight of the Tribunals findings in relation to the Applicants failure to acknowledge the extent of his responsibility for past conduct, errors in completing the current application form and motor dealing without a licence for which he was prosecuted in 1996 leads the Tribunal to conclude that the licence should not be granted. The Tribunal is of the view that Mr Trlin is not a person who is likely to carry on the business of motor dealing honestly and fairly.
25 The Tribunal has also considered the fact that Mr Trlin is a discharged bankrupt. This of its own would not preclude Mr Trlin from being a `fit and proper person' to hold a dealers licence. However this fact, together with his other conduct and bearing in mind the particular obligations of a licensed motor dealer in relation to the management of trust monies, leads the Tribunal to find that Mr Trlin is, for reasons additional to those set out above, not a `fit and proper' person to hold a dealers licence. Section 12 (2)(e) and (g) of the Motor Dealers Act 1974 therefore apply to the Applicant and the licence should not be granted.
17 On 3 February 2000, the Applicant made a fresh application for a dealer licence. On 30 March 2000, the Administrator refused this application. The Applicant again appealed that decision to this Tribunal. On 29 December 2000, the Tribunal dismissed that application on the basis that it was misconceived and lacked substance, pursuant to s.75(3)(h) ADTA. In her reasons for decision, Trlin v Director-General, Department of Fair Trading [2000] NSWADT 192 Judicial Member Britton wrote (at paragraph 26):
The Present Application for a Dealers Licence
… It is open to Mr Trlin to undertake measures which will demonstrate that he has rehabilitated himself and can be trusted and to re-apply for a dealer's licence when he has that evidence. It is not, however, for this Tribunal to advise him on what he should do or for how long - that would pre-empt a future decision.
18 In his application for a dealer licence made on 7 December 2002, the Applicant made full disclosure of all the matters discussed above. He also enclosed materials supporting his contention that he is a reformed character, and a fit and proper person to hold a dealer licence. He did not, however, pay the prescribed fee as required by the application form. In her statement of reasons, on the internal review, the reviewer relevantly concluded that:
The Applicant’s Evidence
Initially, the Administrator relied on some further grounds for refusing the application for a dealer licence, but these were abandoned before the Tribunal.
…
(v) Based on the available information and on the understanding of the objectives and the requirements of the Act, it appears to the reviewer that the applicant is not a person likely to carry on business honestly and fairly nor does the applicant appear to be a fit and proper person to be the holder of a licence.
(vi) Based on the findings of the Tribunal on 31 August 1999 (NSWADT72) it appears to the reviewer that the applicant does not have the ability or capacity to comply with the detailed requirements of the Act in relation to keeping of appropriate records and accounts.
…
(viii) Section 12(2) of the Act is clear that an application for a licence shall be refused if it appears to the Director-General that any of the requirements in subsections (a) to (h) are not met. Section 12(6) is also clear that an application may be refused if some other licence is in force in respect of the place of business, or any part of a place, to which the application relates.
(ix) The decision to refuse to grant a licence because the applicant did not satisfy the reviewer in relation to sections 12(2)(e), 12(2)(f), 12(2)Q1), 12(2)(g), and 12(6)(b) of the Act is affirmed.
19 With his application for a dealer licence, the Applicant included lengthy submissions and supporting documentation, with references, aimed at demonstrating that he is a changed man. Evidence was called from:
20 The references relied on by the Applicant were from:
with a view to demonstrating that the Applicant is indeed a changed man, and that his reputation in the community is that of an ethical and concerned businessman, who is a fit and proper person to hold a dealer licence.
a. the Applicant himself;
b. Pastor Trevor King of the Westside Mission, Ebenezer;
c. Dr Michael Walsh, the Leader of the Edmund Rice Business Ethics Initiative;
d. Mr John Ryder, a friend; and
e. Mr Alessandro Cirigottis, a friend,
21 The theme underlying most of the references was that over the years which have passed since his disqualification the Applicant has changed and matured, and is now a competent and ethical businessman. Mr Mineef wrote that:
Mr Trlin said that each of these referees had been briefed with a note prepared by his then Counsel, Mr Tim Moore. That briefing note said:
a. Dr Michael Walsh, the Leader of the Edmund Rice Business Ethics Initiative;
b. Ms Kay Sweetman, the Applicant’s ex-wife;
c. Mr Alessandro Cirigottis, friend;
d. Mr Alex Mineef, the Applicant’s accountant;
e. Mr Trevor Hunter, friend;
f. Mr A W Starr, friend and business acquaintance;
g. Mr John Ryder, friend;
h. Mr Ed Byron friend and former business acquaintance;
i. Mr Maurice Hotson, friend;
j. Pastor Trevor King, Westside Mission, Ebenezer; and
k. Mr Stephen Trlin, the Applicant’s son;
Some of the Referees clearly had personal knowledge of these circumstances.
In 1987, as a result of the motor dealerships of which Mr Trlin was then a principal undertaking vehicle option trading objected to by the State's consumer protection authorities, Mr Trlin's motor dealer's licences were cancelled.
In 1992, following a bitter family law dispute with Mr Trlin's former wife, Mr Trlin was declared bankrupt. Mr Trlin was discharged from bankruptcy in 1997 having paid his creditors in full.
In 1996, Mr Trlin was prosecuted in Blacktown Local Court for selling motor vehicles without a licence. The vehicles that were being sold were stock from his car rental business or vehicles, which had been left over from the former motor dealership.
Mr Trlin pleaded guilty and was dealt with as a first offender pursuant to the (then) Section 556A of the Crimes Act without a conviction being recorded.
In 1999 and 2000, Mr Trlin was unsuccessful in applications to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal appealing against refusals of the Department of Fair Trading to issue him with a new motor dealer's licence.
Mr Trlin proposes to lodge a further application for a licence and is seeking references for this purpose - with such referees having the material contained in this statement disclosed to them prior to them giving such a reference.
22 In his statement tendered to the Tribunal Dr Michael Walsh wrote:
Pastor King wrote that:
Being John's accountant, I find his business records to be maintained to a high standard with good internal controls, indicating John's ability and capacity to comply with detailed requirements in relation to the keeping of appropriate records and accounts.
John has many years experience with owning and managing a variety of business's which has developed John's business acumen and knowledge.
With this knowledge, and his previous mishaps with his first application for a licence I believe he has all the attributes to hold a licence and is conscious of his past mistakes and compunction of his wrongdoing of giving pain to another.
I have known John and his children for some 25 years and during his wife's illness John was shattered and concentration on his business suffered.
The John Trlin I now know is a vastly different man from the man I knew 25 years ago and is a credit to himself. He is now a disciplined person and his whole philosophy is now one of gentleness and forgiveness. He cares for his fellow human beings, he has been most generous to the Mission and helps personally and financially. His down times have only served to make him a better man.
He keeps himself physically fit by walking many km every day and has improved his outlook by reading good material.
I have no hesitation in recommending John as an astute and honest business person, particularly now that the family is at peace.
23 In his very detailed submission in support of his application, the Applicant outlined his business involvements since he was disqualified form holding a dealer licence in 1986. Put shortly, from 1987 to 1991 he was the manager of a resort at Maroochydore. The business was conducted by a company, Marquis Pty Ld trading as The Palms Resort. Associated with that position he held a liquor licence and a limited real estate agents licence, which enabled him to act as agent on the sale of properties within that complex. No complaints were made to Consumer Protection Authorities in Queensland concerning his management.
In his statement Pastor King wrote:
I am writing in support of Mr John Trlin application for a renewal of his motor dealer licence. I am aware that he and associated companies were suspended for a period of five years in 1986 from holding a motor dealer licence. I realize that he was subsequently charged and found guilty of being an unlicensed motor dealer, but that offence was dismissed upon John entering into, a 556A bond to be of good behaviour for 12 months.
I first came to know Mr Trlin some years after this when his then barrister, Mr Tim Moore, referred him to me for counseling in the area of business ethics. In my capacity as Leader of the Edmund Rice Business Ethics Initiative, I had a series of meetings with John Trlin to explore the implications of ethics as a guide to people engaged in business life.
John participated actively in these sessions. He was keen to ask questions and do follow-up reading on a range of topics that I suggested. He soon saw, that his past behaviour was due to a failure to reflect of many of the principles that ought to guide business professionals in their dealing with the public. He now saw the need for a change in his approach.
Since those ethics sessions in 2000-2001, I believe that a fundamental change of attitude has occurred in John's life. He is now seriously involved in Rotary and has become a leader in community education, with a focus on driver education for youth and instructions to them on the questions to ask and the pitfalls to avoid in the purchase of motor vehicles. I believe this is an area in which John has been able to provide excellent service and sound advice to young people.
I have met John a number of times subsequently at the public forums organized by the Edmund Rice Business Ethics Initiative and we have continued to discuss best practice in the motor sales industry. I firmly believe that John has changed fundamentally in his approach to life and business, and I keenly support the restoration of his motor dealer' licence. I believe John wants to have the opportunity to demonstrate that business success in the long-term is best achieved by adherence to sound ethical business principles of truth and integrity.
…
I am pleased to state that in my opinion John Trlin has developed a very clear understanding of business ethics over the fast few years. It is my opinion that John has benefit in particular from his involvement with the Edmund Rice Business Ethics Initiative.
I have had a number of discussions with Mr. Trlin where he affirmed that he now comprehends that good business ethics are essential for a successful business. He has also stated that he is very keen to be involved with a motor dealership that uses industry best practice in dealing ethically with all customers.
I am also aware of John's heavy involvement in community service including driver programs, community education to assist high school children with the purchase of motor vehicles, and has recently been invited to join the Baulkham Hills Shire Council "Road Safety Steering Committee” in recognition of his commendable efforts in this regard.
I am also aware that the Office of Fair Trading, Department of Commerce rejected Mr Trlin's application. This was in part due to concerns that John Trlin was not a fit and proper person to hold a Motor Dealer's Licence.
I confirm that I strenuously support Mr Trlin's application to be granted a Motor Dealer's Licence as I consider that he would conduct an excellent motor dealership that would be a positive influence on many other dealerships that would ensure that consumers am treated ethically and honestly.
24 Since 1992, the Applicant has conducted a motor vehicle leasing business from his home at Kellyville. He has had up to 25 vehicles at a time on long and short term lease. In 2001, he commenced operating this business under a company structure, called Northwest Auto Rentals Pty Ltd. The Applicant, since 1998, has also conducted a small nursery business as a hobby. There was no suggestion in the evidence before the Tribunal that complaints have been made to the Office of Fair Trading, or its predecessors, concerning the Applicant’s conduct of these businesses.
25 The Applicant said that the charge of unlicensed dealing arose from the advertising and sale of ex-rental vehicles. The Court placed the Applicant on a bond. In his application for a dealer licence the Applicant disclosed this and other similar sales. His evidence was that he had pleaded guilty on advice that would be the likely outcome.
26 After his last appeal to the Tribunal, the Applicant said he had approached the then Department of Fair Trading for advice about what it required him to do, so that he could demonstrate that he is again a fit and proper person to hold a dealer licence. They had not assisted him. At the suggestion of his former Counsel, Mr Moore, he had gone to see Dr Walsh for ethical counselling. After his initial contact and discussions with Dr Walsh, he had continued to participate in the activities and forums conducted by the Edmund Rice Business Ethics Initiative. He said that while his original motivation in seeing Dr Walsh was the pursuit of a dealer licence, he had found that their discussions had provoked other motivations: bettering himself, creating better relations with his family, and running his present business in a better fashion. He observed that as a result of changes inspired by his discussions with Dr Walsh, which he had implemented in his car rental business, in terms of improving quality of service and ethical practice, his business had picked up from word of mouth referrals, while his advertising budget had dropped from 4% to 2% of expenses. He explained that he had learnt the value of and had implemented the following precepts in his business dealing:
27 The Applicant said that he had a long standing involvement with service organisations. When he lived in Queensland, he was a member of Lions. Now he is an active member of Rotary, and participates in a number of programs. Notably he is one of the presenters in Rotary’s U-Turn the Wheel Program for High School students and conducts education program for teenagers concerning the purchase and responsible use of motor vehicles. It was evident from the way the Applicant spoke, that he derives considerable enjoyment and satisfaction from his involvement in this program. He said that in giving his presentation he tells the students about himself, including his disqualification.
a. he treats his customers in the way he would like to be treated;
b. he gives good value for money; and
c. he makes his customers comfortable and treats them as friends.
28 In cross-examination, the Applicant was asked why he had not paid the licence fee when applying for his dealer licence, as required by the application. He had his grandson write on the form that the licence fee would be provided when approved. He said he had only paid the application fee and not the licence fee, because, “I thought I might not get approval.”
29 Mr Wilson asked the Applicant about some of the evidence he gave to this Tribunal on 18 August 1999. The questioning concentrated on the Applicant’s then evidence that he had assistance from Alex (Mr Cirigottis) in completing the form. He noted that the Applicant (at 315.40) had told the Tribunal that he did not know where to find Mr Cirigottis “right now”, and asked the Applicant to explain this. The Applicant explained that he had not known where to find Mr Cirigottis at the time, although he had known that he was ill. He commented that he was not asked to explain why he could not contact him.
30 It is not disputed that the application for a dealer licence made by the Applicant in 1999 did not disclose his prior disqualification, or that he had been refused a dealer licence in Queensland. It is, I think, important to understand that the Tribunal concluded at that time that:
31 Mr Wilson drew the Applicant’s attention to his denial during the 1999 hearing that there was anything wrong in his failure to keep a consignment register in 1986. The Applicant had then told the Tribunal (at 342.37):
“18 … The Tribunal found Mr Trlin to be vague and contradictory in his evidence at the hearing and the Tribunal does not accept that Mr Trlin was being entirely truthful. By his own admission, he was not careful in completing his application form and several significant matters were either not disclosed or not correctly stated on the form.
19 The Tribunal notes that Mr Trlin raised the fact that he was assisted by 'Alex' in completing the form for the first time at the Tribunal hearing. Throughout his correspondence with the Department in relation to the Application and the process of internal review he did not at any stage suggest that someone other than himself completed the form. Regardless of whether Alex or Mr Trlin actually completed the form, Mr Trlin is responsible for the truth of its contents and signed the declaration on the form to that effect.”
32 The Applicant said that he had been taken aback by the nature of the Tribunal hearing in 1999. He had thought he was attending an informal meeting, but walked into what he described as, “a Court Case”. He had not been prepared for the hearing. He had prepared the original application for a dealer licence in 1999 with the assistance of his friend Mr Alessandro Cirigottis. He acknowledged it had been a haphazard effort and that he had paid insufficient attention to detail.
Mr Wilson asked the Applicant for his current view of the matter. The Applicant said that he now believed he should have had a consignment register. He was wrong, and he now realised, having had a good look at himself, that he had made an error of judgment. He now accepted that the cars were on consignment.
“… see I never admitted to that and I still to this day believe I was right in what I was doing and I didn’t have to have that register because they weren’t consignment as such. They were option cars bought on options. We had advice-”
33 Mr Wilson asked the Applicant about the practice of ‘talking down’ the selling prices of vehicles with vendors. The Applicant said that he was not aware that his salesmen were engaging in this practice. He described his responsibilities at that time as making sure that the vehicles sold were safe and that the customers were happy. When asked why he had not been aware of the ‘talking down’ practice from an examination of the business records, he said that the administrative side of the business was looked after by managers and auditors.
34 I asked the Applicant why this was so. The Applicant said that at the time he did not have his finger on the pulse. His business was failing due to advertisements placed by the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs, he was enmeshed in Family Court proceedings, and the finance companies were moving in on him. He said at that at the time he was a 48 year “boy” and that the conduct of his salesmen was “appalling”. He said he was very sorry about that. He said that he loved the motor car trade and wanted to get back in the industry.
35 Pastor King is the administrator of the Westside Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation Program. Pastor King has known the Applicant for many years. He told the Tribunal that the Applicant was a super-confident, almost arrogant young man, and a tough, hard man. He knew that the Applicant had been disqualified from holding a dealer licence, but not for how long or the details underlying that disqualification. Pastor King said that the last three years he has observed positive changes in the Applicant that have shocked him. The Applicant now emphasises honesty and doing the right thing. He is more reflective and thoughtful. Pastor King said he thinks that the change in the Applicant is genuine. He commented that the Applicant is not a fool, that he has had his comeuppance, and learnt great lessons. He thought that the Applicant, as he is now, would come down on any malpractices he found in his business, “like a ton of bricks”. He said that the Applicant’s generosity is a recent phenomenon.
36 I explained to Pastor King the practice of ‘talking down’ found by the Commercial Tribunal, and told him that the Commercial Tribunal had been satisfied that the Applicant knew this practice was occurring in his business. I asked if knowing the degree of dishonesty involved changed his assessment of the Applicant. It did not. Pastor King said that the Applicant, now, would not let such a thing happen.
37 Dr Michael Walsh is the Leader of the Edmund Rice Business Ethics Initiative, a program affiliated with the Christian Brothers. He has ample qualifications in ethical practice and training. Dr Walsh told the Tribunal that he had taken the Applicant through a course of counselling in ethical practice in 2001. It is unusual for him to do one on one counselling. The Applicant was referred to him by Mr Moore, Barrister. Dr Walsh said that he understood that the Applicant had lost his dealer licence. Mr Moore provided him with documents concerning that loss of licence, the Applicant’s bankruptcy, and the charge of unlicensed dealing in 1996. The object of the counselling sessions was to get the Applicant to the point where he is a fit and proper person to hold a dealer licence. The sessions lasted six months. In that period, they reviewed the Applicants practices, and discussed and reflected upon various reading that Dr Walsh gave to the Applicant. He instanced Simon Longstaff’s book Hard Cases, Tough Choices as one such reading. Dr Walsh told the Tribunal that he believed that the Applicant has genuinely reflected on his past behaviour, and realised that his behaviour was inappropriate. He has adopted an ethical path in his dealings, as is manifested by his work with young people. Dr Walsh said that he thinks the Applicant is genuinely changed, and will not stray from the ethical path again.
38 Ms Healey explained to Dr Walsh the findings of the Commercial Tribunal relating to ‘talking down’ and asked whether that knowledge changed his view. It did not. Dr Walsh said that he believes that the Applicant is a changed person, one who can now look his children and grandchildren in the eye. In cross-examination, Dr Walsh said that the Applicant had not told him the details of the ‘talking down’ practice, but he had been aware that the Applicant had talked prices up and down. He did not think that allowing further time for the Applicant’s change of perspective to settle in would make a difference. Dr Walsh commented, “He has made a fundamental change”.
39 Mr John Ryder is a former police officer who is a long-time friend of the Applicant. Mr Ryder told the Tribunal he had been a police officer from 1952 to 1998, with his last years spent as the senior officer in the Police Internal Affairs Unit. Since retiring from the Police, he runs a lawn mowing business. He mows the Applicant lawns, and therefore sees him regularly. Mr Ryder said that his relationship with the Applicant is rigorous in that they are open and candid with each other. Mr Ryder said he has no difficulty in telling the Applicant what he thinks, even if it may be unwelcome news.
40 Mr Ryder said that he thought that the Applicant was not prepared to confront the difficulties he had suffered when he was disqualified from holding a dealer licence. He had been indignant and determined to tough it out, but had not acted to defend himself. For many years, he would not accept the result, despite his failure to defend himself. Mr Ryder said that the Applicant is a different man now to that which he was back then. He gets pleasure out of his business, likes giving good service, and has a degree of humility about him. In response to being given details of the ‘talking down’ practices found by the Commercial Tribunal, Mr Ryder said it did not change his present assessment of the Applicant. He regarded him as a changed man. In response to a question from Mr Wilson, Mr Ryder said that he had not been aware that the Applicant had been charged with unlicensed dealing in 1996.
41 Mr Alessandro Cirigottis is a teacher and friend of the Applicant. He told the Tribunal that he had helped the Applicant fill in his application for a dealer licence in 1999. They did this over some time, both in person at the Applicant’s home and over the phone. He said he asked the Applicant for answers and wrote them down. He said that the Applicant had told him he had been disqualified from holding a dealer licence, but not why. He told him that he had been prosecuted for unlicensed trading, but had not been convicted. Mr Cirigottis could not recollect whether the applicant had told him he had been found guilty. He said he had read the transcript of the 1999 Tribunal hearings.
Submissions
42 The submissions to the Tribunal focussed on whether the Applicant is a person who could be expected to conduct the business of a motor dealer fairly and honestly, and whether the Applicant is now a fit and proper person to hold a dealer licence. Mr Wilson, for the Administrator, submitted that there had no doubt been significant change in the Applicant, but that not enough time had been allowed to pass for the Applicant now to be granted a dealer licence. Mr Wilson made it clear that the Administrator’s position was not that the Applicant would never be a fit and proper person to hold a dealer licence. The Administrator acknowledged that there is a capacity for rehabilitation, but argued that the Applicant had not yet reached the stage where it could be said that he is a fit and proper person.
43 Ms Healey submitted that the Applicant is now a different man, and satisfies the requirements of the Motor Dealers Act 1974. She submitted that in considering the Applicant's role in the original misconduct that resulted in his disqualification, I should note that he did not give evidence to the Commercial Tribunal, and that he had told me that he had not known of the practice of “talking down”. I indicated to Ms Healey that given the findings of the Commercial Tribunal that the Applicant had known of and approved the practice, I had difficulty in accepting that submission.
The Law
44 In Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales(No. 2) (1955) 93 CLR 127 the High Court discussed the meaning of the term ‘fit and proper’ (at 156-7):
45 Thus the nature of the industry, in which the person concerned wishes to operate, affects a consideration of whether a person is a “fit and proper person” to operate in that industry . In Haining v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service (1999) NSWADT 6 at [41] the President of this Tribunal made the following comments on the issue, in the context of the security industry:
The meaning of "fit and proper" is dependent on the nature and purpose of the activities that the person will undertake: Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 at 380 where Chief Justice Mason said that:
“The expression ‘fit and proper’ is of course familiar enough as traditional words when used with reference to offices and perhaps vocation. But their very purpose is to give the widest scope for judgment and indeed for rejection. ‘Fit’ (or ‘idoneus’) with respect to an office is said to involve three things, honesty, knowledge and ability … When the question was whether a man was a fit and proper person to hold a licence for the sale of liquor it was considered that it ought not to be confined to an inquiry into his character and that it would be unwise to attempt any definition of the matters which may legitimately be inquired into; each case must depend upon its own circumstances.”
In Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board 20 SASR 70 Walters J said:
“The question whether a person is fit and proper is one of value judgment. In that process the seriousness or otherwise of particular conduct is a matter for evaluation by the decision maker. So too is the weight, if any, to be given to matters favouring the person whose fitness and propriety are under consideration.”
“In my opinion what is meant by that expression is that the applicant must show not only that he is possessed of a requisite knowledge of the duties and responsibilities evolving upon him as the holder of a particular licence … but also that he is possessed of sufficient moral integrity and rectitude of character as to permit him to be safely accredited to the public … as a person to be entrusted with the sort of work which the licence entails.”
46 A person who has been found to be of bad character, and not a fit and proper person to operate in an industry, may redeem him or herself. In re Davis (1947) 75 CLR 409 was a case in which a Barrister, who was admitted to practice in 1946, was disbarred in 1947 because he had failed to disclose that in 1935 he had pleaded guilty to breaking entering and stealing, when applying for admission to the Barristers Admission Board. He argued that he was a reformed character. In dismissing his appeal to the High Court, Latham CJ said (at 416):
In the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, the President of the Tribunal, Kellam J, in Raymond Robbins v Business Licensing Authority (2000) VCAT 457 said:
‘Whether a person is ‘fit and proper’ to hold a licence in a regulated industry will be affected by general considerations relating to the character of the person, special considerations that take account of the nature of the industry in issue and the public policy objective leading the legislature to regulate the industry.’
These comments raise similar considerations to those discussed by Judicial Member Fleming in Trlin v Department of Fair Trading [1999] NSWADT 72.
“The nature, the number and the date of the convictions is relevant to the issue of whether or not the applicant is a fit and proper person to be permitted to deal with the public in a motor car sales capacity … In the circumstances of this case the conduct of the applicant is such that he cannot be seen as presently fit to deal with members of the public in the motor car trade. The convictions and his behaviour go to the very heart of matters of honesty, integrity and reliability of a motor car trader. The Act has established a system which entitles a purchaser of a motor car to rely upon the honesty and integrity of a motor car trader or salesperson. If that is undermined, the very structure of the Act is eroded. The offences in this case were not of a trivial or minor nature such as, some minor failure to keep proper books or records or of trading outside hours which were not permitted. The offences in this case are such that they are capable of eroding the confidence the community should have in relation to the motor car trade and in relation to the legislation which is structured to protect the public who might buy or sell motor cars.”
Conclusion
In Clearihan v Registrar of Motor Vehicle Dealers in the Australian Capital Territory (1994) 122 ACTR 25 Miles CJ considered an appeal against a decision of the ACT AAT to affirm the refusal by the Registrar to issue a motor vehicle dealer licence on the basis that the appellant was not of “good fame and character”. Chief Justice Miles said (at 30 –31):
“It was submitted that the appellant, by his good behaviour since 1934, had redeemed himself, and that it was not unreasonable for him to take the view that in 1944 and 1946 that he was then a person of good fame and character. It may be that he had by that time become a person of good fame, i.e., of good reputation among those who knew him. But intrinsic character is a different matter. A man may be guilty of grave wrongdoing and subsequently become a man of good character. If the appellant had frankly disclosed to the Board … of the fact of his conviction, that disclosure would have greatly assisted him in an endeavour to show that he had retrieved his character. But the failure to make such disclosure in itself, apart from the conviction, excludes any possibility of holding that he was in 1946, or had become in 1947, a man of good character.”
The issue of whether a person who has been determined not to be a fit and proper person to hold a dealer licence has been so reformed that she or he is now fit and proper, is a matter of judgement. In considering that issue the Tribunal is required to take into account the nature and seriousness of the original misconduct, any events relevant to an assessment of the Applicant’s fitness which have occurred since then, the candour with which the Applicant has approached the issue of past misconduct, the Applicant’s explanation of the misconduct, the impact of the effluxion of time, and the Applicant’s present circumstances and reputation. The Tribunal should bear in mind the warning sounded by the Court of Appeal in Law Society of NSW v Bannister (unreported Court of Appeal, 27 August 1993, BC930181) where Sheller JA, delivering the judgment of the Court, observed:
“It is a matter of common experience that a person’s character is capable of development over time. At one end of the scale, a person who commits an isolated act of misconduct may afterwards indicate that he or she has learned from the experience, so that any mark on character brought about by that lapse may fade relatively quickly. At the other end of the scale, even people who have demonstrated evil character are capable of reform. A whole philosophy of sentencing for serious criminal offences is built on that principle. When character is under consideration for a purpose connected with a trade or profession different considerations apply according to the nature of the trade or profession.
“… absent some acceptable explanation of how greed and opportunity led the Solicitor to carefully plan a course of action which he knew was dishonest and deceitful, character evidence is not particularly helpful to a court or tribunal in determining whether it can be confident that there will not be a repetition.”
47 The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that there have been no complaints made to fair trading authorities relating to the Applicant’s conduct of his various businesses in both Queensland and New South Wales since 1987. There is no doubt that the Applicant has experienced a number of vicissitudes, such as his bankruptcy, in the meantime, but there is no allegation that he has subsequently engaged in dishonest, sharp or deceptive practices in the course of his various businesses.
48 The bankruptcy is one which the evidence shows arose following protracted Family Court proceedings. The Applicant was discharged from bankruptcy on 30 October 1994 (nine years ago) and has been successfully running a number of businesses since then. The references before the Tribunal, most importantly that of Mr Mineff, the Applicant’s accountant, show that the Applicant successfully conducts his present business in a proper and businesslike manner, maintaining proper records and accounts. There was no suggestion by the Respondent that the Applicant is unable to meet the financial requirements of the Motor Dealers Act 1974.
49 The Applicant did plead guilty to, and the Local Court consequently found proven, a charge of unlicensed dealing in July of 1996. The unchallenged evidence before the Tribunal is that the vehicles being sold by the Applicant were from his car rental business, and that the Applicant pleaded guilty on legal advice. It is of note that the Local Court dismissed the charge upon the Applicant entering into a recognizance to be of good behaviour. This indicates that the Court did not view the Applicant’s conduct as particularly serious. The evidence also indicated that the Applicant has continued to sell his ex-rental vehicles since then to the knowledge of the Respondent, without further action against him. The Applicant’s evidence that he now realises that he should have advised the Respondent of his sales before this prosecution demonstrates a substantial change in attitude on his behalf, and a greater understanding of the role of the Respondent in protecting consumers.
50 The evidence before the Tribunal from Dr Walsh, Pastor King and Mr Ryder all points to the Applicant being a substantially different man to that he was when he was disqualified in 1987, some 16 years ago. They paint the picture of the Applicant as an ethical, honest and reflective man, in both his business and his private dealings. They each gave evidence of a noticeable change in the Applicant’s views and conduct over recent views, one which he has worked at, and were each prepared to express the view that Applicant is now a highly ethical man, who they considered would operate the business of a motor dealer honestly, fairly and ethically. They are each men of substantial experience and reputation, and I give their opinions substantial weight. Their views are substantially verified by each of the written references before the Tribunal.
51 The most recent matters which go against the Applicant’s claim that he is a fit and proper person to be granted a dealer licence, and is likely to carry in such a business honestly and fairly, are the findings made by this Tribunal in 1999 quoted in paragraphs 14 and 15 above. Much of the time I have taken in considering this decision since the hearing, has been concerned with reflecting on the impact of those findings on the present application. It will be recalled that the Tribunal found that the Applicant was not a person who was likely to conduct the business of a motor dealer honestly and fairly. Among the factors leading the Tribunal to reach that conclusion were the Applicant’s failure to disclose relevant past matters, such as his disqualification, in his application and its determination that he had approached the whole process with a lack of candour. It is not for me now to revisit or review those findings. I do note, however, that I have had the advantage of hearing further evidence that was not before the Tribunal at that time. I had the benefit of hearing the evidence of Mr Cirigottis, in which he outlined his role in assisting the Applicant prepare that application for a dealer licence. That evidence is in accordance with what the Applicant told the Tribunal in the course of his evidence in 1999. This evidence, of course, does not detract from the fact that it was the Applicant’s duty to properly prepare that application and disclose all relevant matters. It is not disputed that he did not do so. What Mr Cirigottis evidence does, is show that the Applicant was not deceiving the Tribunal in 1999 when he gave evidence of Mr Cirigottis role in preparing the form. A reading of the transcript of those proceeding, and the Tribunal’s reasons, indicates that this evidence was strongly challenged and regarded as suspect by the Tribunal. I have concluded that while it is not for me to revisit those findings made by the Tribunal in 1999, the evidence before me is sufficient to enable me to give less weight to the Tribunal’s finding in 1999, than I would have if I had not heard Mr Cirigottis evidence.
52 The evidence before me demonstrates that the Applicant has gone to significant efforts to improve himself since the Tribunal’s decision in 1999. He has gone through a substantial process of ethical counselling, operates his present businesses in accordance with ethical principles, and has an active involvement in the community. It is of note that in the course of his work in the U Turn the Wheel project, he discloses his history to school students. This is a public indication that the Applicant has now accepted his past culpability, and has moved on. The Applicant, however, still denies that he knew that his salesmen were engaged in the process of ‘talking down’, and approved of them doing so, as found by the Commercial Tribunal. Nonetheless, he now clearly regrets and is remorseful that such ‘appalling’ practices occurred in his business.
53 While aware of the caution sounded by Sheller JA in Law Society of NSW v Bannister I have come to the view that, given the substantial and impressive evidence before the Tribunal of the change in the Applicant’s character, the sixteen years that have elapsed since he was disqualified, the fact that the original disqualification was for five years only, and the fact that the Applicant has been operating his other businesses, without blemish, for a substantial time, I am satisfied that the Applicant is likely to carry on the business of a motor dealer honestly and fairly, and that he is now a fit and proper person to be the holder of a dealer licence. I am not persuaded that the Respondent’s submission that while the Applicant has demonstrated sufficient change, he “needs more time” before he can be considered a fit and proper person is made out. The evidence of Dr Walsh, Pastor King and Mr Ryder was that they thought the changes in the Applicant were established, and that more time was not needed. My view is that evidence shows that the Applicant has worked very hard to reform himself, and has demonstrated through both the character evidence he has called, and his own conduct in recent years in the management of his businesses and his community involvement, that he has reformed. Inherent in the recognition that a person may reform him or herself, is the requirement that those changes in a person be shown to be both established and consolidated. In this case, I am persuaded that the evidence shows that they are. I cannot see any benefit flowing from continuing to exclude the Applicant from his chosen trade as a motor dealer, other than punishment for his past misdeeds: something which the Applicant has already endured. That is not the purpose of the licensing provisions of the Motor Dealers Act 1974.
54 One other matter needs to canvassed. The Applicants failure to pay the licence fee, as requested by the application form, when he made the present application for a dealer licence on 7 December 2002. It will be recalled that the Applicant paid the application fee, but not the licence fee, on the ground that he thought he might not be granted the licence. During the hearing, there was some debate as to the precise requirements of the Act with respect to payment of fees. The Motor Dealers Act 1974 at the time the application was made provided by s.10 that:
55 Finally, I note that both parties were in agreement that should I determine to set aside the decision of the Administrator and instead decide to issue the Applicant with a dealer licence, any such licence should be subject to the conditions outlined in the letter from the Baulkham Hills Shire Council to the Applicant dated 18 February 1998 concerning the conduct of a retail motor dealer business at 2 Acres Road, Kellyville. That letter is annexed to the application for a dealer licence.
The use of the word “may” in ss (3) makes it clear that there was no mandatory requirement that the licence fee be paid at the same time as the application. The Applicant’s failure to pay the licence fee when making the application, therefore is not a ground for refusing his application. It should be noted that s.10 has subsequently been amended following the commencement of the Licensing and Registration (Uniform Procedures) Act 2002.
(2) An application shall be in writing in a form approved by the Director-General, shall be accompanied by the prescribed fee for the application and shall be signed:
(3) An application may, in addition to the prescribed fee for the application, be accompanied by the prescribed fee for the licence.
(a) where the application is made by a natural person—by that person, or
(b) if the application is made by a body corporate—by at least one director of the body corporate.
Decision
56 The Tribunal sets aside the decision of the Administrator made on 17 March 2003 to refuse the Applicant a dealer’s licence under the Motor Dealers Act 1974. The Tribunal substitutes that decision with a determination that, upon payment of the prescribed licence fee, John Louis Trlin be granted a dealer licence under the Motor Dealers Act 1974 authorising him to carry on business as a motor dealer at 2 Acres Road, Kellyville upon the conditions set out in the letter from the Baulkham Hills Shire Council to Mr Trlin dated 18 February 1998.
108
7
2