Chief Executive - Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation v Mcvey [2010] QCAT 594

CITATION: PARTIES: Chief Executive - Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation v Mcvey [2010] QCAT 594 Chief Executive - Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation v Mr Scott Peter Bain Mcvey APPLICATION NUMBER: OCR195-10 MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters HEARING DATE: Decision on the papers HEARD AT: BRISBANE DECISION OF: Ms Peta Stilgoe DELIVERED ON: 10 November 2010 DELIVERED AT: BRISBANE ORDERS MADE: 1. The respondent is reprimanded. 2. The respondent will pay a fine of $1750 to the applicant within 21 days of the date of this order. 3. The respondent will pay costs of $510 to the applicant within 21 days of the date of this order. CATCHWORDS : MOTOR DEALERS – where respondent held a licence to conduct a consultancy business – where the respondent carried on the business of a motor dealer - penalty APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any): This matter was heard on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 -- 1 of 2 -- OCR195-10 / Page 2 of 2 REASONS FOR DECISION [1] From 2005 to 2009, Mr Mcvey held a motor dealer’s licence with this condition: The named licensee shall undertake the following activities as a motor dealer to negotiate, under a consultancy arrangement, for a person who is not a motor dealer or auctioneer for the purchase or sale of a used motor vehicle for the person. [1] Mr Mcvey went further than his licence conditions allowed. Upon a specific request from a purchaser for a car selected from an auction house, he bought the car at auction, transferred it into his own name and then transferred it on to the purchaser. He operated in this way because many motor auction houses will not allow members of the public to bid at auction and will not accept payment directly from a member of the public. Further, a transfer of registration to a consumer requires a roadworthy certificate, which auction houses will not supply. [2] Mr Mcvey concedes that his activities were in breach of his licence conditions. [3] The parties have agreed that the appropriate penalty for Mr Mcvey’s breach is: a) A reprimand; b) A fine of $1750. c) That Mr McVey pay the Department’s costs of $510. [4] I propose to make those orders. Mr McVey says, and I accept: a) He did not intentionally operate in contravention of his licence conditions. b) As soon as the breach was brought to his attention, he took steps to obtain, and does now hold, a full licence. c) He has already received infringement notices in relation to contraventions of this nature and has paid fines totalling about $2800. As a consequence, Mr Mcvey feels he has been penalised twice. d) He thought that the Department had implicitly approved his operation because an officer from the Department investigated his business in 2008 and made no comment about it. [5] The orders are: a) Mr McVey is reprimanded. b) He will pay a fine of $1750 plus costs of $510 to the applicant within 21 days of the date of this order. -- 2 of 2 --