Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Gilder v Commissioner of Fair Trading [2019] NSWCATOD 80 Hearing dates: 23 April 2019 Date of orders: 23 May 2019 Decision date: 23 May 2019 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: A Scahill, Senior Member Decision: The decision of the Commissioner for Fair Trading that Mr Gilder's registration should be cancelled under the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 is set aside. Catchwords: Real Estate agent - cancellation of licence - declaration that agent is disqualified person- annulment of bankruptcy- reasonable steps to avoid the bankruptcy Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 New South Wales Retirement Villages Act 1999 Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 Cases Cited: Brandt v Commissioner of Fair Trading [2005] NSWADT 26 Davidson v Commissioner for Fair Trading, Office of Fair Trading [2004] NSWADT 200 McDonald v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2004] NSWADT 124 Smart v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2005] NSWADT 33 Young v Paddle Brothers Pty Ltd [1956] VicLawRp 6; [1956] VLR 38 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Kelvin Gilder (Applicant) Department of Fair Trading (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Mr Coss (Respondent) File Number(s): 2018/00320015 Publication restriction: N/A REASONS FOR DECISION Introduction 1. Mr Kelvin Gilder was the holder of a certificate of registration and later a licence, as a real estate agent from July 1997. His licence was cancelled by the Commissioner for Fair Trading (the Commissioner) in August 2018. 2. On 16 May 2018 Mr Gilder's petition to be declared bankrupt was accepted. On 30 July 2018 the Commissioner for Fair Trading wrote to Mr Gilder asking him to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him on the grounds that he had been declared bankrupt and was now a disqualified person. Mr Gilder responded to the notice to show cause. However, on 22 August 2018 the Commissioner again wrote to Mr Gilder advising that it had determined to take disciplinary action against him and to cancel his real estate agent's licence. Further the Commissioner declared Mr Gilder to be a disqualified person for the purposes of the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 (the Act) until 15 May 2024 and disqualified Mr Gilder from being involved in the direction, management or conduct of the business of a licensee under the Act until 15 May 2024. 3. Mr Gilder sought review of the decision in the Tribunal. The matter in issue 1. The parties agreed at the commencement of the hearing that the central matter in issue was whether Mr Gilder had taken reasonable steps to avoid the bankruptcy. If Mr Gilder had taken reasonable steps to avoid the bankruptcy, then he would be exempt from being a disqualified person under the Act. 2. The relevant provisions set out that anyone who has been an undischarged bankrupt in the three years preceding, is disqualified from holding a real estate agent's licence. There is an exception if the Commissioner is satisfied that the person took all reasonable steps to avoid the bankruptcy. The Commissioner was not satisfied that Mr Gilder had taken all reasonable steps in this case. 3. The parties did not disagree about the factual background to Mr Gilder's circumstances. 4. The parties' disagreement was about how these facts should be characterised in determining whether Mr Gilder had taken reasonable steps to avoid the bankruptcy. The Role of the Tribunal 1. The Tribunal must determine whether the Commissioner made the "correct and preferable" decision in cancelling Mr Gilder's real estate agent licence. (See s 63 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (ADT Act). Legal framework 1. Real Estate licences are issued and cancelled under the Act. Section 8 of the Act requires a person carrying on the business of a real estate agent to hold a licence. 2. Section 14 specifies that for a person to be eligible for a licence the Secretary must be satisfied, among other things, that the Applicant is not a "disqualified person". 3. Section 16 (1A) provides that a person is also a disqualified person for the purposes of this Act …. if the person: (a) is an undischarged bankrupt, or (b) at any time in the last 3 years was an undischarged bankrupt, applied to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors, compounded with his or her creditors or made an assignment of his or her remuneration for their benefit 1. There is no dispute in this case that Mr Gilder met the definition of a disqualified person set out in section 16 (1A) (a) and (b) at the date of hearing. Although Mr Gilder's bankruptcy was annulled on 30 January 2019 prior to the hearing, Mr Gilder had been in the last 3 years an undischarged bankrupt who had applied to take the benefit of law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors. 2. Section 16(2B)(a) provides that the Secretary may exempt a person from the operation of subsection (1A) (a), (b) or (c) by: (a) certifying, in the case of exemption from subsection (1A) (a), that the Secretary is satisfied that the person took all reasonable steps to avoid the bankruptcy concerned, or (b) certifying, in the case of exemption from subsection (1A) (b), that the Secretary is satisfied that the person took all reasonable steps to avoid the bankruptcy or other financial difficulties concerned 1. Section 191 (d) of the Act provides that disciplinary action can be taken against a person who is or was the holder of a licence and the person is a disqualified person or is otherwise not eligible under section 14 to hold a licence or certificate of registration. 2. Section 192 sets out the disciplinary action which may be taken. This action includes that the Secretary may: (e) impose a condition on the person's licence or certificate of registration, (f) suspend the person's licence or certificate of registration for a period that does not exceed the unexpired term of the licence or certificate of registration, (g) cancel the person's licence or certificate of registration, (h) declare the person to be a disqualified person for the purposes of this Act, either permanently or for a specified period, (i) disqualify the person from being involved in the direction, management or conduct of the business of a licensee. The Fair Trading determination 1. The determination that is the subject of this application was: (i) in accordance with section 192(1)(g) of the Act, to cancel Mr Gilder 's licence; and (ii) in accordance with section 192(l)(h) of the Act, to declare that Mr Gilder is a disqualified person for the purposes of the Act for a period of three (3) years; and (iii) in accordance with section 192(1)(i) of the Act, to disqualify Mr Gilder for a period of three (3) years from being involved in the direction, management or conduct of the business of a licensee. Mr Gilder's case 1. Mr Gilder's Case was set out in letters dated: * 6 August 2018 in response to the notice to show cause; * 27 August 2018 in response to the Respondent's determination to cancel his licence; * 26 February 2019 filed in the Tribunal; and * 2 March 2019 filed in the Tribunal 1. Mr Gilder gave affirmed evidence to the Tribunal in which he adopted his previous statements. 2. Mr Gilder's case was that: 1. He took reasonable steps to avoid bankruptcy over a six-year period. 2. He sought professional advice and it was recommended that he file for bankruptcy. 3. He was not a risk to the public as he would not be operating in the open market. 4. His employment depended on his licence. 1. Mr Gilder stated that in 2006 he became unemployed when his employer closed its doors. He tried to work a business from home on his own account. However, it became clear that he would need to establish a traditional real estate office to have a greater impact in the market. He took out a substantial bank loan using his home as security to do this. The venture was unsuccessful. By October 2009 Mr Gilder was forced to sell his home and rent it back to clear most of his debt. 2. Mr Gilder continued to operate his business after this with mediocre results and increasing debt. In 2011 a friend lent him $17,000 pending the settlement of two sales. His friend suggested that he not pay the sum back to him immediately so that Mr Gilder would get back on his feet. Unfortunately, not long after the arrangement was made, Mr Gilder's friend died. The executor of the estate requested repayment of the borrowed funds. Mr Gilder was only able to make small intermittent payments. Greater pressure was applied for repayment. The family arranged with the ANZ bank manager to meet Mr Gilder on 10 July 2012. The bank manager agreed to lend Mr Gilder the necessary funds without Mr Gilder filling in a loan application. This was despite Mr Gilder telling the bank manager that he would either not be able to service the loan or would only be able to make payments intermittently. Mr Gilder received the funds from the bank on 22 August 2012. He struggled for many months to make repayments. In September 2013 without any warning, Mr Gilder received advice from Credit Corp stating that they had taken over the loan from ANZ. During this period, he had also maxed out his NAB credit card. He was making late payments and invoking their customer care arrangements. In the end he was not able to make the payments that he had agreed to. Mr Gilder stated that in hindsight he realised that he should have sought financial advice. He did not do so, "plodding along" in the hope that he could eventually work through the issue. 3. Mr Gilder continued to make modified small loan repayments to Credit Corp. These did not make much impact into reducing the debt. In March 2018 Mr Gilder took up the issue with the ANZ bank on the basis that they acted recklessly, unprofessionally and without due care in providing him with funds in the first place. This was at the time of the Royal Commission into the actions of the banks. Mr Gilder took ANZ's response to his solicitor. In May 2018 Mr Gilder's solicitor advised that the process of taking ANZ on would be lengthy, costly and quite possibly not successful. Mr Gilder's solicitor referred him to an insolvency consultant in Wagga Wagga. On 11 May 2018 Mr Gilder met with the Wagga Wagga insolvency consultant who recommended that Mr Gilder file for bankruptcy. At this time Mr Gilder had no saleable assets and no way of making further repayments. He completed that documentation on 12 May 2018 and submitted it on 14 May to the insolvency consultant. Mr Gilder's bankruptcy came into effect on 16 May 2018. 4. The only creditors associated with the bankruptcy were NAB in the amount of $12,260 and Credit Corp in the amount of $19,330. 5. Mr Gilder had held a certificate of registration commencing in 1979 and a licence commencing in 2003. At no point had any disciplinary actions been taken against him. He had operated a trust account since 2003 and had never had any issues with audits. At all times he had acted for his clients in their best interests. He thought that clients and all previous employers would attest to his honesty and integrity. 6. When he responded to the job advertisement for his current position as sales manager of a retirement resort, he advised his potential employers that he held a real estate licence. He assumed that they wished to employ someone with real estate experience. He now realised that his licence was important to them as it allows them to charge a selling fee to outgoing residents. Mr Gilder considered that if he were unable to maintain his licence, his position would be in jeopardy. He stated that whilst it was abundantly obvious that he may not be a great business operator, he firmly believed that he was a fit and proper person to hold a real estate licence. 7. In his submission of 27 August 2018 to the Respondent, Mr Gilder stated that he had taken reasonable steps to avoid bankruptcy. He did not seek independent advice some six years previously because he thought he would be able to fight his way out of the problem. He did not at the time even contemplate bankruptcy. He did continue to make repayments over a six-year period, at all times keeping his creditors informed. It was only when he had nothing left to give and was in negotiations with ANZ and ASIC that he sought advice from his solicitor on how to proceed to effect an annulment of the loan. The solicitor advised him that it would be possibly unsuccessful, lengthy and costly to do so. He did not expect that his solicitor would recommend that he consider bankruptcy. It had never crossed his mind. The thought of it was repugnant. However, he believed that there was not much point in seeking professional legal advice and then ignoring it. 8. Mr Gilder did not consider that he would be a risk to the public. He did not wish to operate a real estate practice. He had cancelled his ABN. He had not operated a trust account for several years and would not in the future. He would not be acting as an agent with the general public. All funds received from purchase of homes in their village were held in a trust account of lawyers in Melbourne. All dealings with potential purchasers of the village are strictly governed under the New South Wales Retirement Villages Act 1999. 9. Mr Gilder's submissions to the Tribunal dated 26 February 2019 noted that he communicated with his creditors and his bankruptcy was subsequently annulled on 31 January 2019. 10. Mr Gilder's submissions to the Tribunal dated 2 March 2019 stated that Mr Gilder had never put his financial needs before those on whose behalf the acted. He submitted that not seeking advice in 2012 did not demonstrate the lack of reasonable steps to avoid bankruptcy. He had never even considered bankruptcy and had full intentions of paying back all funds. He struggled for six years but during this time he made considerable repayments. When he was unable to meet repayments, he would make appropriate arrangements with the creditor. Had he sought advice back then in 2012 then it is likely that the advice would have been the same as received in May 2018 (to petition for bankruptcy). As such the two creditors would have missed out on the benefit of six years of repayments. 11. Section 192 of the Act provided for other penalties for a disqualified person - other than disqualification of licence. To annul his bankruptcy, he had borrowed funds from his employer. They were repayable from his salary. If he did not have his licence reinstated, he would likely lose his employment, be forced onto the pension and be left with significant debt. The Respondent's submissions 1. The Respondent largely accepted the factual background set out by Mr Gilder. 2. The annulment of Mr Gilder's bankruptcy did not have any bearing on the decision. This was because at the time of the Respondent's decision, Mr Gilder was an undischarged bankrupt and applied to take the benefit of law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent creditors. He was therefore a "disqualified person" as defined in section 16 (1A) of the Act. 3. Section 16 (1A) was inserted into the Act to clarify interpretation of the section. The intended purpose of the disqualification provision is to ensure that people who have demonstrated an inability to adequately manage their business, and who may put their financial needs before those on whose behalf they act, should be excluded from holding a licence. In light of the clear consumer protection purpose of section 16 of the Act, the expression "at any time within the last three years was an undischarged bankrupt" includes a reference to a person whose bankruptcy has been annulled. 4. Further the Respondent submitted that annulment of the bankruptcy was not a sufficient basis to disregard the Applicant's bankruptcy for the purposes of section 16 (1A)(b) of the Act. 5. The relevant issue was the construction of section 16 (1A)(b) of the Act. The section refers to a disqualified person as being one who relevantly: in the last three years 1. was an undischarged bankrupt; and 2. applied to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors. 1. Mr Gilder's situation satisfied each of these criteria. Were reasonable steps taken by Mr Gilder to avoid bankruptcy? 1. The relevant time for determining whether an Applicant took all reasonable steps is when he or she was "faced with the possibility" of a bankruptcy or insolvency. See Davidson v Commissioner for Fair Trading, Office of Fair Trading [2004] NSWADT 200 at [20], or "was aware" or "should have been aware of that possibility". See McDonald v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2004] NSWADT 124 at [21] 2. On Mr Gilder's own evidence, he was aware in July 2012 when requested by the family of the deceased to meet with them at the ANZ bank with a view towards obtaining a loan of $17,000 to repay the money lent to him by the deceased, that he would not be able to service the loan. 3. In 2013 the ANZ transferred this loan to Credit Corp. Mr Gilder still did not seek any financial advice at this time, hoping things would eventually work out. At the same time, he was having extreme difficulty making payments on his NAB credit card and to Credit Corp. 4. Mr Gilder did not seek financial and legal advice until 2018. 5. The focus must be on the steps that the person took to avoid the bankruptcy in question, not the bankruptcy at large see Smart v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2005] NSWADT 33 at [15]. 6. In assessing the reasonableness of the steps taken to avoid bankruptcy, the Tribunal must examine all relevant facts and circumstances. The steps taken by the Applicant must be objectively reasonable in the sense that they would be taken by reasonable person, endowed with the knowledge and experience of the Applicant see McDonald v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2004] NSWADT 124 at [26] to [27]. 7. The Respondent submitted that there was no evidence from Mr Gilder that he acted in a diligent and prudent manner with respect to his debts to NAB and Credit Corp between 2013 to 2017. 8. The Respondent noted that Mr Gilder had already been required in 2009 to sell his home as he was unable to repay a loan. 9. The Respondent submitted that Mr Gilder knew or ought to have known that he was in extreme financial difficulty in 2013 and that bankruptcy was a possibility. Further from that time he should have taken steps to avoid that possibility. Reasonable steps would have included seeking professional advice. By his own admission he did not seek advice until 2018 when bankruptcy was his only option. 10. As Mr Gilder did not seek legal and financial advice regarding his situation until 2018 the Respondent submitted that he did not take all reasonable steps to avoid bankruptcy. The Tribunal's analysis Findings of Fact 1. There was no significant disagreement between the parties as to the facts of the matter. The Tribunal accepts Mr Gilder's outline of events. Findings on relevant law Took all reasonable steps to avoid the bankruptcy. 1. The Tribunal has analysed the meaning of "took all reasonable steps to avoid the bankruptcy" in the matters of McDonald, Smart and Davidson. See McDonald v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2004] NSWADT 124; Smart v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2005] NSWADT 33; and Davidson v Commissioner for Fair Trading, Office of Fair Trading [2004] NSWADT 200. 2. In the matter of McDonald v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2004] NSWADT 124 at [21], the Tribunal specifically affirmed the test as being "the steps taken or not taken by the person to avoid bankruptcy." This was distinct from steps related to the coming into existence of circumstances that resulted in the bankruptcy – the test required in similar Queensland legislation. 3. In Smart the Tribunal affirmed that this meant the particular bankruptcy. See Smart v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2005] NSWADT 33 at [19]. 4. In McDonald at [29] the Tribunal stated that the person is not required to take all possible steps to avoid bankruptcy, but rather all reasonable steps to do so. See Young v Paddle Brothers Pty Ltd [1956] VicLawRp 6; [1956] VLR 38 at 42. 5. In McDonald v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2004] NSWADT 124 at [21] and [27] the Tribunal broke the reasonable steps question in to 2 further questions. 1. At what point was the person aware or should have been aware that bankruptcy was a possibility? 2. What would have been the view of a reasonable person endowed with the knowledge and experience of the plaintiff? Avoiding the bankruptcy itself 1. In Smart's case at [17], the Tribunal referred to the views taken by the Tribunal in McDonald, Smith v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2004] NSWADT 182 Davidson v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2004] NSWADT 200 and Brandt v Commissioner of Fair Trading [2005] NSWADT 26. In Smart v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2005] NSWADT 33 at [17] the Tribunal affirmed that the focus of the inquiry was not on the incurring of debts that resulted in the bankruptcy but rather on the bankruptcy itself : "a person must have taken reasonable steps to avoid the bankruptcy, not steps to avoid the circumstances, such as the incurring of debts which ultimately resulted in the person becoming bankrupt. Focus is on 'the' bankruptcy that has given rise to the disqualification and consequent licence cancellation." 1. The Tribunal considers this a difficult distinction to make especially in matters where the person's financial circumstances have been relatively straightforward. 2. To interpret the concept of reasonableness, the Tribunal draws on the purpose of the provisions of the Act in disqualifying bankrupt real estate agents. In McDonald at [20] the Tribunal considered the purpose of the legislation in determining what were reasonable steps: One purpose of the Act is to protect sellers and buyers of homes from dishonest or disreputable real estate agents. If a person became bankrupt as a result of some wrongful or improper conduct or because of financial irresponsibility, it may be necessary to protect the public by excluding such a person from being a real estate salesperson. Taking all reasonable steps to avoid bankruptcy is consistent with being financially responsible. Consequently, the purpose of the Act is consistent with interpreting the phrase taking "all reasonable steps to avoid the bankruptcy" according to its ordinary meaning. 1. This Tribunal understands that this focusses the assessment of reasonableness on ensuring that the public is protected from irresponsible or dishonest practitioners. When should Mr Gilder have known that the bankruptcy of May 2018 was a possibility? 1. The Respondent's representative submitted that the relevant date that Mr Gilder should have been aware that bankruptcy was a possibility was in 2012- 2013 when Mr Gilder took on the loan. That is the date at which Mr Gilder should have known that there was a possibility of him becoming bankrupt. The Tribunal understands that it is the Respondent's view that Mr Gilder should have obtained financial advice at this time. 2. The Tribunal accepts that at any time a person takes on a debt there is a theoretical possibility that they may be bankrupted over failure to repay the debt. The Tribunal is not satisfied however that Mr Gilder should have been aware that the bankruptcy was a possibility at the time he entered into the loan. He had previously managed his circumstances by selling his house to clear debt. Further not every unpaid loan results in bankruptcy. The bankruptcy May 2018 1. There were 2 creditors in Mr Gilder's bankruptcy debts – his credit card debt to NAB and the ANZ loan debt which was taken over by Credit Corp. Mr Gilder's evidence was that the steps preceding his petition for bankruptcy were that he responded to the Banking Royal Commission. He sought advice about his situation in relation to the loan from the ANZ bank. He sought advice from his solicitor and a debt advisor, and the advice was that he had little choice but to declare himself bankrupt. He followed the advice. He said that the precipitating event was that he had nothing left to give his creditors. Reasonable steps? 1. Mr Gilder's circumstances were relatively straightforward. He lived in a country town. He was qualified and worked as an employed real estate agent. His employer went out of business and Mr Gilder continued in the calling for which he was qualified. Business was poor. He reduced costs by working from home. He sold his asset, his home, to reduce his debt. He borrowed money from a friend and used his credit card for living expenses. He was eventually bankrupted over these steps to maintain a modest living. No evidence was put before the Tribunal of Mr Gilder having engaged in dishonest dealings or irresponsible speculation with clients' monies. 2. The Tribunal considers that as a real estate agent Mr Gilder would generally have been aware of commercial issues of credit and debt. His evidence was that he was candid with the ANZ Bank about his unlikely capacity to repay the debt. He also said that he stayed in contact with his creditors and engaged with customer care services. He kept on making payments as he was able. His evidence was that he plodded along. Mr Gilder conceded that he "may not be a great business operator." 3. The Tribunal returns to the purposes of the Act in assessing what were reasonable steps in the circumstances. In McDonald at [20] the Tribunal considered the purpose of the legislation in determining what were reasonable steps. There the Tribunal referred to the purpose of protection of sellers and buyers of homes from dishonest or disreputable real estate agents. If a person becomes bankrupt as a result of some wrongful or improper conduct or because of financial irresponsibility, it may be necessary to protect the public by excluding such a person from being a real estate salesperson. Taking all reasonable steps to avoid bankruptcy is consistent with being financially responsible. 4. There may have been other "possible steps" Mr Gilder could have taken to avoid the bankruptcy. The Tribunal is satisfied however that Mr Gilder continued to work in his area of qualification to bring in income; he communicated with his creditors; he made payments when he was able. There is no doubt that he has been financially unsuccessful. However, the aim of the Act is to deal with agents who are financially irresponsible causing harm to buyers and sellers. There is no doubt Mr Gilder's bankruptcy and his availing himself of the mitigating aspects of bankruptcy has caused financial damage to his creditors. However, the disqualification provisions are intended to protect the public – not punish the agent . The Tribunal does not consider protection of the public is required in Mr Gilder's case. 5. The fact is that Mr Gilder did seek financial advice, at a time when the bankruptcy was a possibility, but before it eventuated. That was a reasonable step. He could have taken that step sooner than he did, but in the circumstances, it is as likely that earlier advice would simply have led to him petitioning earlier than he did for bankruptcy. It is not possible to say on the evidence whether the possibility of bankruptcy was greater in 2012 than it was in May 2018. The advice he says he received in May 2018 was that he should consider bankruptcy as the only reasonable course available to him. There is no question on the facts, or argued by the Commissioner, that petitioning for bankruptcy himself, rather than waiting for a creditor's petition, was an unreasonable step on Mr Gilder's part. It appears that there were no other reasonable steps Mr Gilder could have taken. Findings 1. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Gilder's circumstances satisfy section 16 (1A) (b) in that in the last 3 years he was an undischarged bankrupt and applied to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors, compounded with his or her creditors or made an assignment of his or her remuneration for their benefit. 2. The Tribunal has not taken into account the possible impacts of the Tribunal's decision on Mr Gilder's welfare. The legislation is focussed on protection of the public. 3. The Tribunal is satisfied that in and from May 2018 when Mr Gilder said he had nothing left to give his 2 creditors, Mr Gilder should have been aware of the possibility of bankruptcy. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Gilder's steps in continuing to communicate with his creditors, making payments as he was able and seeking advice from a solicitor and debt advisor in May 2018 were reasonable steps. They were not successful steps in avoiding the bankruptcy. The Tribunal is satisfied that by May 2018 there were no further reasonable steps he could have taken to avoid the bankruptcy. 4. In these circumstances, Mr Gilder is entitled to the conclusion that he took all reasonable steps to avoid the bankruptcy. As a result, Mr Gilder is not a disqualified person, and the Commissioner is unable to cancel his licence on that ground. 5. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Gilder took all reasonable steps to avoid the bankruptcy or other financial difficulties concerned in terms of Section 16(2B)(b). In these circumstances the Secretary may exempt Mr Gilder from being a disqualified person under section 16 (1A)(b) of the Act. 6. Accordingly, the decision to cancel Mr Gilder's licence is set aside. In substitution for that decision, the Tribunal determines that Mr Gilder was not a "disqualified person" pursuant to s 16(1A) of the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 at the time the Commissioner made his decision because Mr Gilder took all reasonable steps to avoid the bankruptcy. Orders 1. The decision of the Commissioner for Fair Trading that Mr Gilder's registration should be cancelled under the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 is set aside. I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 23 May 2019