Saul v Department of The Fair Trading

SAUL V DEPARTMENT OF FAIR TRADING [2019] NSWCATAD 161
A Paper on Court Case By
Student’s Name
Name of the Professor
Institutional Affiliation
City/State
Year/Month/Day

NAME AND JURISDICTION OF THE CASE
The name of the case was Saul v department of the fair trading. The jurisdiction was the
administrative and equal opportunity division. The main keywords, in this case, were whether it
was fit for the applicant to hold a license of a real estate agent. The applicant was Maryellen Saul
and the respondent was a commission for fair trading. The decision of the court under review
was affirmed (Anonymous.., 2020).
DESCRIPTION OF UNETHICAL PRACTICE
The applicant submitted to the respondent in the name of Maryellen Saul in a registration
certificate under the act of PSBA. On the form, she did not disclose the conviction and other
names such as Brady and burling. In 2007, she signed application to be accredited as auctioneer
for agent license of real estate also in the Maryellen Saul name and as before the application did
not disclose any other names and conviction on the form. In 2007, the applicant signed an
application for the license of the business agent without disclosing other names and conviction
information. the applicant signed the form certifying that information provided is true and its
offense under act 1900 to make misleading statements that have the penalty is imprisonment or
fine of $22000 (Anonymous, 2020).
EXPLANATION HOW THE UNETHICAL PRACTICE RELATES TO
REQUIREMENTS OF CONSUMER PROTECTION
The law that regulates the industry of real estate is protective to consumers and also safeguard
the public confidence of the public. Trust and honesty are important regulators that maintain the
confidence of the public and licensees can be trusted to protect the communities' interests. On
30th August 2018, the respondent issued the determination to take the action of disciplinary