Wilson v Director General of the Department of Fair Trading (No 2)

[2003] NSWLEC 173

>

Reported Decision: 126 LGERA 212

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:	Wilson v Director General of the Department of Fair Trading (No 2) [2003] NSWLEC 173
PARTIES:	APPELLANT Michael John Wilson RESPONDENT Director General of the Department of Fair Trading
FILE NUMBER(S):	30082 of 2003
CORAM:	Talbot J
KEY ISSUES:	Appeal :- valuers disqualification to start from date of Land and Environment Court decision
LEGISLATION CITED:	Valuers Registration Act 1975 s 21 Land and Environment Court Rules s 13.39
CASES CITED:
DATES OF HEARING:	06/06/2003
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE :	06/06/2003
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	APPELLANT Mr K Newell (Barrister) SOLICITORS N/A RESPONDENT Ms K Grant (Solicitor) SOLICITORS Department of Fair Trading

JUDGMENT:

IN THE LAND AND

ENVIRONMENT COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

30082 of 2003

Talbot J

6 June 2003

Michael John Wilson

Appellant
v

Director General of the Department of Fair Trading

Respondent

Judgment

Introduction

1 HIS HONOUR: The Court agrees with the submission made by Ms Grant on behalf of the respondent. The misconduct resulting in Mr Wilson’s conviction and his continued failure to disclose the conviction to the regulator support the decision made by the delegate to remove his name from the register of valuers for a period of five years.

2 The Court re-determines the matter in the same way for the reasons that I now publish.

3 I make the following orders:-

(1) Appeal dismissed.
(2) Decision of the delegate of the Director General of the Department of Fair Trading on 6 January is confirmed in accordance with s 21 of the Valuers Registration Act, namely, Michael John Wilson is to be removed from the register of real estate valuers for a period of five years from this date.
(3) Costs reserved
(4) The exhibits may be returned.

4 I publish my reasons.

5 NEWELL: Can I just make one amendment to that, your Honour. In discussion with my friend as to when that disqualification should commence--

6 HIS HONOUR: I see, I thought there was consensus that it was from this date.

7 NEWELL: There was, your Honour, but we’ve now reached a new consensus.

8 GRANT: I had a look at the matter and I may well be incorrect but I looked at the Land and Environment Court Rules at 13.39 which provides that an appeal to the Court does not operate as a stay of proceedings under the relevant decision or order and my instructions are Mr Wilson was not re-issued with a licence following the order that was made earlier this year by the Director General’s delegate.

9 HIS HONOUR: But this is a re-hearing.

10 NEWELL: Yes.

11 HIS HONOUR: What you are suggesting is he should be given credit. See, I’m not actually reinstating the decision of the delegate, am I?

12 NEWELL: No, it’s your decision, your Honour.

13 GRANT: Yes.

14 NEWELL: It’s your decision and I think you are entitled to commence it from today on reflection.

15 GRANT: I would agree with that. I was simply correcting the error that I thought we were under on Monday, that the Director General’s decision had been stayed which in fact it had not.

16 HIS HONOUR: I see.

17 NEWELL: That was the only issue.

18 HIS HONOUR: I didn’t have the evidence before me particularly that he had not held a certificate but it being a re-hearing it’s a re-determination. Although I agree with the decision of the delegate and confirm it I would think the suspension, unless you want to put something to me specifically, is from today.

19 NEWELL: I think that’s right, your Honour.

20 HIS HONOUR: All right, I’ll leave it.

21 COUNSEL ADDRESSED ON COSTS

22 HIS HONOUR: I order that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs.