Detailed Analysis: Saul v. Department of Fair Trading Case and Ethics

This report provides a detailed analysis of the Saul v. Department of Fair Trading [2019] NSWCATAD 161 case, focusing on unethical practices within the real estate industry. The report examines the case's jurisdiction, the unethical behavior of the applicant, Maryellen Saul, who failed to disclose prior convictions and other names on registration and license applications. It explores how these actions relate to consumer protection requirements, emphasizing the importance of trust and honesty in the real estate sector. Furthermore, the report explains the real estate ethical standards and codes of conduct, including the Property Stock and Business Agents Act (PSBA), that were relevant to the prosecution. It also outlines the disciplinary actions taken against the applicant and discusses options available to address discrepancies between unethical and ethical practices. The conclusion summarizes the applicant's convictions and the court's decisions, highlighting the consequences of failing to adhere to ethical standards in the real estate profession.

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

against the applicant under act 2002 of the property stock and business agent. The action of
disciplinary was: Applicant’s license was canceled under 192(1) (g) of the PSBA act –this
includes the agent of real estate, station, stock, and business agent license. The applicant was
declared not to be qualified from having a license and the certificate of the registration for acts of
PSBA for the 7 years. The applicant was also not qualified from being involved in the
management, direction, and conduct of the business of the licenses for seven years (Anonymous,
n.d.).
EXPLANATION HOW THE REAL ESTATE ETHICAL STANDARDS AND CODES OF
CONDUCTS OF PRACTICE RELATED TO PROSECUTION
The person should not perform the business of agents of real estate unless the individual has the
license. Some sections provide that the individual should not represent they exercise any job of
real estate salesperson in the employment of individually licensed under PSBA unless it is the
holder of the registration certificate. A person is disqualified if they have conviction in NSW for
an offense of dishonesty recorded in ten years. The disciplinary actions or prosecutions include
monetary penalty, suspension of license or certificate of registration. Disqualifying the person
and reprimanding (Anonymous., 2020).
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO RESPOND TO DISCREPANCY BETWEEN ETHICAL
AND UNETHICAL PRACTICES STANDARDS
In determining an application for the review under the act, the tribunal decides what preferable
decision and correct. The tribunal decides what the correct and preferred decision by including
any relevant and factual information or material and any unwritten or written law that applies.
The tribunal exercise functions imposed by relevant legislation on the administrator who made a

decision. The tribunal decides to affirm and vary reviewed decision administratively, to set aside
reviewed decisions and decide on substitution and remit matters for the reconsideration
concerning recommendations of the tribunal (Anonymous, 2020).
CONCLUSION
The applicant was convicted under the name of marriage Brady in 1994 of conspiracy to defraud
and cheat and attempting to pervert the course of justice. She insisted not guilty and the charges
were defended at trial and received the custodial sentence for three years duration of detention in
the respect to every charge. She applied for an individual agent license for real estate to the fair
trading commissioner and was issued with the agent license in 2008. The applicant got married
to Burling in 1998 who was the director of the Burling commercials and burling reality limited.
In 2016, the respondent served the applicant with notices of court attendance relating to 4
charges. Two charges were withdrawn by the respondents and the remainder were dismissed and
the respondent paid money following the legal cost of the applicant. The applicant failed to
include all these convictions and other names to the application form of certificate or license.

REFERENCES
Anonymous,., 2020. NSW Government Bulletin Government - Australia (online). Available from:
https://www.mondaq.com/australia/Government-Public-Sector/583270/NSW-Government-Bulletin
(Accessed 5-April-2017).
Anonymous.., 2020. Saul v Department of Fair Trading Saul v Department of Fair Trading - NSW
(Online).Available from: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5d52124ee4b0c3247d711143.
Anonymous., 2020. NSW Government Bulletin(online).Available from: https://www.holdingredlich.com-
nsw-government-bulletin. Holdingredlich.com. (Accessed 21-august-2019)
Anonymous, 2020. NSW Government Bulletin(online) Available from:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=53761049-4a23-498a-b4ee-05cba645fd12. Lexology.
Lexology.com
Anonymous, n.d. NSW Government Bulletin: In the media, reports, cases, and legislation - Government,
Public Sector - Australia(online). Available from: https://www.mondaq.com/australia/Government-
Public. Sector/841466/NSW-Government-Bulletin-In-the-media-reports-cases-and-legislation.