King-Orsborn v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2022] NSWCATOD 1

King-Orsborn v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2022] NSWCATOD 1

The Applicant is not entitled to the grant or restoration of a class 1 licence because she does not satisfy the mandatory qualification and experience requirements under all statutory pathways, and has not demonstrated that the failure to renew was due to inadvertence or that it is just and equitable to restore. The Tribunal also lacks jurisdiction to order the refund or change the licence number sought by the Applicant.

Parties
Applicant: Paris King-Orsborn; Respondent: Commissioner for Fair Trading
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Merits Review (licensing/administrative) / Final Tribunal Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed (decision affirmed); ancillary relief refused for lack of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Licensing, Merits Review, Real Estate Agents, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Transitional Provisions
Administrative Law Occupational Regulation Real Property Law Licensing Merits Review Real Estate Agents Tribunal Jurisdiction Transitional Provisions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paris King-Orsborn

Applicant

Commissioner for Fair Trading

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Merits Review (licensing/administrative) / Final Tribunal Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant is entitled to a Class 1 Real Estate Agent's Licence
  2. 2 Whether REAL 1611761 (the Individual Licence) should be restored
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to order a refund or licence number change

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant is not entitled to the grant or restoration of a class 1 licence because she does not satisfy the mandatory qualification and experience requirements under all statutory pathways, and has not demonstrated that the failure to renew was due to inadvertence or that it is just and equitable to restore. The Tribunal also lacks jurisdiction to order the refund or change the licence number sought by the Applicant.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed (decision affirmed); ancillary relief refused for lack of jurisdiction

Orders

  • The decision under review to not issue a class 1 licence to the Applicant is affirmed.
  • The applications for a refund of money paid by the Applicant to the Respondent and for a change in the licence number of a licence issued to the Applicant by the Respondent are refused for lack of jurisdiction.