1. The first respondent's decision be set aside and, in its place, the complaint be dismissed.
2. The parties file and serve any evidence and submissions in respect of costs within 14 days.
3. List the costs application(s) for hearing on a date to be fixed, to be in no fewer than 21 days.

Professions and Trades - Auctioneers and Agents - Disciplinary Proceedings - Appeal against caution in respect of unsatisfactory professional conduct - Allegation of incorrect agent's address - Whether agent obliged to update address register - Whether address was materially incorrect - Any breaches were minor and technical - Property Agents Board erred in finding unsatisfactory professional conduct.

Property Agents and Land Transactions Act 2016, ss 3, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 52, 54, 83, 84, 85, 92, 100, 101, 102, and 116;

Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020, ss 10, 78;

Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Amendment (Additional Jurisdictions) Act 2025

B v Mental Health Tribunal [2020] TASSC 10;

Favato v Property Agents Board [2026] TASCAT 3;

Hegarty v Property Agents Board [2026] TASSC 4;

Kelly v Sherlock [2025] TASCAT 231;

Lawler v Real Estate Institute of Tasmania [2024] TASSC 31;

R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; Ex parte Hardiman (1980) 144 CLR 13; [1980] HCA 13

First Respondent: Submitting appearance - Dobson Mitchell Allport

1. The appellant, Patrina Atkinson, is a property agent (the agent). She advertised her business as being within Launceston's 7250 postcode. The second respondent (the complainant) was unhappy about that. She alleged that the agent operated from a neighbouring postcode and misleadingly represented herself as operating from inner Launceston. She made a complaint to the first respondent, the Property Agents Board (the Board).
2. Property agents are regulated by the Property Agents and Land Transactions Act 2016 (PALTA). As Brett J observed in Lawler v Real Estate Institute of Tasmania [2024] TASSC 31 at [1], it:

[I]ncludes a process for investigating, determining and, if appropriate, imposing discipline in respect of complaints made about such conduct. Conduct subject to the disciplinary provisions of [PALTA] includes that which amounts to professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct. Those terms are defined in the legislation. Complaints about conduct are received and investigated by the [Board]. After it has completed its investigation, the Board may deal dismiss the complaint, deal with minor misconduct or otherwise refer the complaint to a Tribunal...

3. The Board investigated the complaint and found that the agent used "an inaccurate unauthorised place of business address". The Board determined that this was unsatisfactory professional conduct of a minor nature and cautioned her.
4. The agent appeals against the Board's decision. I conclude that the Board erred in several ways. The appeal must be allowed, the Board's decision set aside, and the complaint dismissed.

1. The agent is the managing agent and a director of Alexia Pty Ltd trading as Living Here Launceston (the agency). The Board's register, which PALTA required it to maintain, recorded the agency's address as 25 Invermay Road, Launceston, 7250.
2. The complainant alleged that the agency's correct address is 23-25 Invermay Road, Launceston, 7248, and that 25 Invermay Road "does not exist". She alleged that the agent engaged in misrepresentation or misleading conduct by knowingly using an inaccurate address on various paraphernalia. This included advertising and marketing material, websites, social media sites, vehicles, and signage. The complainant alleged the agent's purpose to be to achieve increased prominence, and financial and competitive advantage, in the market.
3. The Board investigated the complaint and determined it based on written evidence and submissions. There was no hearing, nor was there required to be one. The complainant's evidence before the Board included screenshots of a title search for the agency's address, the Board's register, and examples of the agent's advertising paraphernalia.

1. The Board's findings may be summarised as follows:
   • The agency's address, according to the Register of Titles, was 23-25 Invermay Road, Invermay, Tasmania, 7248.
   • The agency's address, as it appeared in the Board's register, was 25 Invermay Road, Launceston, Tasmania, 7250.
   • "It is perhaps inferred [by PALTA, ss 29-33 and 54] that the address of the authorised place of business provided to the Board by a property agent should be accurate".
   • The agent used an inaccurate address in relation to her authorised place of business.
   • The agent failed to correct the register or explain why she continued to use an incorrect address.
   • The incorrect address was in the register and on the agent's advertising paraphernalia.
   • This constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct of a minor nature which could be adequately dealt with by way of caution under PALTA, ss 100(b) and 101(6)(a).
   • The Board decided to amend the Register because of these findings.
   • The agent should have 28 days from the decision "for the necessary changes to be made to [her] address across media where it is required".
2. I will consider the evidence supporting these propositions later.

1. To understand the Board's findings, it is necessary to consider PALTA. As the Board correctly noted, s 29(1) requires it to maintain a register of property agents. Section 54 requires an agent to:

[e]nsure that advertisements published in connection with the agent's real estate business contain the real estate agent's name and the address of the agent's authorised place of business.

2. 'Authorised place of business' is relevantly defined in s 3 as:

[a] place shown in the Register as a place where the agent, manager or auctioneer may carry on, respectively, real estate agency business, property management business, or general auctioneering business[.]

3. The Board has no statutory obligation to verify the accuracy of the addresses of authorised places of business provided to it by property agents.

1. Part 7 of PALTA creates the professional discipline regime. This includes 'conduct complaints', of which there are three types: serious offences (which are indictable criminal offences), professional misconduct, and unsatisfactory professional conduct. Like many professional discipline regimes, PALTA regards unsatisfactory professional conduct as less serious than professional misconduct.

1. Unsatisfactory professional conduct is defined in s 83(1) as including:

[C]onduct of a property agent when acting as a property agent that falls short of the standard of competence and diligence that a reasonable member of the public is entitled to expect from a reasonably competent property agent.

1. Section 84 requires the Board to develop a Code of Conduct which is relevant to dealing with conduct complaints under Pt 7. Section 85, titled 'Application of Code of Conduct', provides:

(1) The Code of Conduct is to contain guidance on what does or does not constitute unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct. > > (2) The Code is to specify, in particular, the obligation that a real estate agent named in Part 1(1) of the Register, a property manager named in Part 2(1) of the Register or a general auctioneer named in Part 3(1) of the Register has to supervise people employed by the agent, manager or auctioneer, and the agent's, manager's or auctioneer's liability in the event of their failure to carry out that obligation. > > (3) A failure on the part of a property agent to observe a provision of the Code does not of itself render the property agent liable to disciplinary action, but the failure may be relied upon as tending to establish that the property agent was guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct.

1. Section 100 prescribes the Board's powers after it has investigated a complaint. Where "the evidence appears to indicate that the conduct complaint about only amounts to minor misconduct that can adequately be dealt with by the Board", the Board may deal with it under s 101. Minor misconduct is undefined.

1. Section 101 prescribes the procedure for minor misconduct. Section 101 allows the Board to require an agent to provide it with "a written explanation of the conduct", following which the Board must determine whether the complaint has been substantiated. If the complaint is not substantiated, the Board must dismiss it. If the Board is satisfied that the evidence substantiates the complaint, it may caution or reprimand the agent, and/or accept an undertaking from the agent to undertake or refrain from undertaking specific conduct.

1. That is what the Board did in this case: it was satisfied that unsatisfactory professional conduct was established and that it was of a minor nature, and it cautioned the agent.

1. This appeal, which was instituted in the Property Agents Tribunal (PAT) and subsequently transferred to this Tribunal by the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Additional Jurisdictions) Act 2025, is by way of rehearing: Favato v Property Agents Board [2026] TASCAT 3 at [26]. I recently summarised the features of a re-hearing under PALTA in Hegarty v Property Agents Board [2026] TASCAT 4 at [29]- [31]. It is unnecessary to repeat that summary. It is sufficient to note that the agent needs to establish error on the Board's part.
2. Before considering the grounds of appeal, it is necessary to address who is a party.

1. Plainly enough, the agent is a party to the appeal. She commenced the proceeding, is aggrieved by the Board's decision, and has made submissions as to why the decision should be set aside.

1. The Board concedes that it is a party to the appeal. It prosecuted the complaint through an investigator acting on its behalf and made the decision that is under review.[1] However, the Board has decided not to play an active role in the appeal, instead filing a notice of submission save as to costs. That means that the Board has not defended its decision but may later make submissions as to any orders regarding the costs of the appeal. It has not made any submissions regarding its powers and procedures.
2. The Board's decision to submit to the Tribunal's orders is, I infer, based on the Hardiman principle. The principle comes from R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; Ex parte Hardiman (1980) 144 CLR 13; [1980] HCA 13 at [54], where the High Court explained that:

In cases of this kind the usual course is for a tribunal to submit to such order as the court may make. The course which was adopted by the Tribunal in this Court is not one which we would wish to encourage. If a tribunal becomes a protagonist in this Court there is the risk that by so doing it endangers the impartiality which it is expected to maintain in subsequent proceedings 4 which take place if and when relief is granted. The presentation of a case in this Court by a tribunal should be regarded as exceptional and, where it occurs should, in general, be limited to submissions going to the powers and procedures of the Tribunal.

3. The High Court's reference to 'cases of this kind' refers to cases in which the tribunal (here, the Board) may later need to determine proceedings involving the same party. The principle exists to avoid a situation where the tribunal's impartiality is damaged in remitted or similar proceedings. It is unnecessary for me to comment on whether there is such a risk in this case. But it is appropriate to observe that the Hardiman principle does not prevent a tribunal from making submissions on its powers and procedures.

1. The complainant has not taken part in the appeal, instead stating that she is not a party. The agent agrees and has made some allegations regarding the complainant's real identity and whether the complaint is fraudulent or was made under another person's name. It is unnecessary to consider these allegations having regard to my conclusions as to the substance of the agent's complaints about the Board's decision.
2. It is neither necessary not desirable to determine whether the complainant is a party. As the Tribunal identified in Kelly v Sherlock [2025] TASCAT 231, the question is one of statutory construction. I do not have the benefit of submissions from the parties on the point.

1. The grounds of appeal are somewhat discursive. They may be summarised as:
   • Ground 1: The Board should have dismissed the complaint because the agent was not at fault and dealing with the complaint was not in the public interest.
   • Ground 2: The address that the agent used complied with PALTA, s 54 and was the address of her authorised place of business.
   • Ground 3: The Board failed to consider whether the complaint should have been summarily dismissed under PALTA, s 92.
   • Ground 4: There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint, such that the Board should have dismissed it under PALTA, s 101(5).
   • Ground 5: The agent complied with PALTA, s 52(1) and did not misrepresent her place of business or otherwise cause confusion.
   • Ground 6: The Board should not have decided to amend the register and, instead, maintained the agent's address as 25 Invermay Road.
   • Ground 7: The agent's address was neither materially inaccurate nor dishonest, should not be amended, and did not confuse any person.
   • Ground 8: In the alternative, the agent wants an opportunity to seek that the Launceston City Council amend its records to rate 23 and 25 Invermay Road as a single property.
   • Ground 9: In the alternative, the 28-day period that the Board gave the agent to change her paraphernalia to reflect the correct address should be extended to four months.
2. The agent subsequently made other allegations of errors, including one relating to the identity of the complainant to which I earlier adverted.
3. She also contends that she was denied procedural fairness because the Board considered a letter from the complainant to which the agent was not privy and therefore unable to make submissions in respect of it, although this was not the subject of a ground of appeal.

1. Rather than commencing with the appeal grounds, it is convenient to consider the Board's central finding. The central finding made by the Board is that the agent inaccurately stated her address. The Board inferred there to be a material inaccuracy between '25 Invermay Road, Launceston 7250' and '23-25 Invermay Road, Invermay 7248', and that respondent's reliance on the inaccuracy constituted unsatisfactory personal conduct.
2. It appears not to be disputed that the two addresses are different: each has a different postcode and suburb. The Board inferred from this that the agent inaccurately stated her address and engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct.
3. To my mind, the Board's latter inference is overly literal to the point of error. It does not sit comfortably with several findings that it made in the agent's favour. After explaining that it was not satisfied that the agent breached PALTA, s 54, the Board went on to say that:

[T]he Complainant has not demonstrated to any extent, or provided any material evidence, to support her claim that the Real Estate Agency gains or has gained any financial advantage arising from the use of an inaccurate address. It is also not apparent how the location of the Real Estate Agency has any bearing on the 'scope of its operations. > > Given that the input of '25 Invermay Road, Launceston 7250' into internet search engines invariably returns the actual geographical location of the Real Estate Agency's premises, it is not apparent how the public are being inconvenienced or misled. Additionally, whilst the correct address may be within an adjacent suburb within the greater Launceston area (Invermay), the geographical location of the premises is not significantly different from the Central Business District of Launceston (3 minute drive/11-15 minute walk). This would tend to render the Complainant's arguments regarding the inconvenience of the location as being without merit. > > The Board considered it unlikely that a reasonable person would select a Real Estate Agency based solely on its geographical location and that many other factors would inform any decision to engage one particular agency over another. The Board failed to be persuaded by the Complainant's contention that the location of a Real Estate Agency premises has a bearing on the public's perception of the expertise of the agency.

4. It appears that the Board conflated perfect or literal accuracy in the recording of an address with the professional conduct requirements. The ultimate issue is not whether the agent's address is inaccurate, but whether the agent engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct. It seems to me that this apparent misapprehension led the Board into error.

1. The Board did not expressly consider the definition of unsatisfactory professional conduct in PALTA, s 83(1), which I set out earlier. Nor did the Board expressly consider the Code of Conduct (Code) under ss 84 and 85. While this is not an appeal on the ground of inadequate reasons, the Board's reasoning process, and any gaps in it, is relevant in determining whether the Board erred in finding unsatisfactory professional conduct.
2. The definition of unsatisfactory professional conduct is the test against which the agent's conduct must be assessed. Because this is an appeal by rehearing, I must decide for myself whether unsatisfactory professional conduct has been established.
3. I have had regard to the Code's examples of unsatisfactory professional conduct in cl 16, and misleading conduct, harassment and unconscionable conduct in cl 18, as well as the requirements of professionalism in cl 19. None is particularly relevant to the agent's conduct.

1. The case before the Board was entirely documentary. Neither the agent nor the complainant gave evidence. I am therefore in as good a position as the Board was to draw inferences from the documentary evidence. I am satisfied that the agency's address was inaccurate in a literal sense. But I am not satisfied that the inaccuracy was material.
2. The agent's explanation to the Board was given through her counsel. Like the Board, I treat this as evidence rather than submissions, noting that it was uncontradicted. The agent explained that 23 and 25 Invermay Road, Invermay were two separate addresses which were

[A]malgamated into one address with one entrance many years ago after the property was first obtained by [the agent] and significantly converted into a single property for use as a real estate office... [This] was about thirty years ago. Before that, the property had been used as two shops separately comprised in numbers 23, and 25. The address of 23 Invermay Road was subsumed by 25 Invermay Road and the only access to the building thereafter was designed to be through the entrance to 25 Invermay Road.

3. As the Board adverted to, Invermay is within the greater Launceston area. I do not consider it to be materially inaccurate to describe the agency's suburb or city as Launceston. The situation would be similar to a person living in Battery Point stating that she lives in Hobart. The former is a component of the latter. As the agent correctly submits, "25 Invermay Road is within the city of Launceston".
4. The situation is slightly different with respect to the postcode. The postcode was inaccurate; a postcode is either correct or incorrect. But the agent's reliance on or perpetuating of an inaccuracy cannot not be conflated with unsatisfactory professional conduct. With great respect to the Board, it appears to have reasoned that unsatisfactory professional conduct follows an inaccuracy like night follows day. I repeat that the Board's reasons do not mention the definition of unsatisfactory professional conduct or the Code.
5. While the agent's use of an inaccurate postcode is unfortunate and undesirable, the surrounding circumstances satisfy me that it does not amount to unsatisfactory professional conduct. The uncontradicted evidence is that the address of the premises now used by the agency was 25 Invermay Road. At some stage, the property's address was changed to 23-25 Invermay Road. The precise mechanism by which that occurred does not appear to be relevant.
6. Consistent with the Board's finding, I am satisfied that 23-25 Invermay Road is within Invermay and the 7248 post code. In contrast, 25 Invermay Road, when it existed as a separate address, was within Launceston and the 7250 post code.
7. In the absence of objection (there being no contradictor), I received documentary evidence from the agent comprising plans of the relevant area and assertions that other, unrelated businesses on other parts of Invermay Road - both those further from the Launceston central business district and closer - described themselves as being in Launceston and the 7250 post code.
8. From this, I conclude that while the agency's address was technically inaccurate it was not materially inaccurate. The Board failed to establish that the agency's inaccuracy:

[F]alls short of the standard of competence and diligence that a reasonable member of the public is entitled to expect from a reasonably competent property agent...

which is PALTA's definition of unsatisfactory professional conduct.

1. It follows that the agent did not engage in unsatisfactory professional conduct. Grounds 1, 4, and 7, which in substance amount to that conclusion, succeed.

1. Usually, the Tribunal should determine all grounds of appeal. The primary reason is to avoid a situation where, in the event of a successful appeal from the Tribunal's decision, the matter must be remitted to the Tribunal for the remaining grounds of appeal to be determined. However, the circumstances of this matter make it undesirable for me to determine the remaining grounds of appeal. Not all grounds were the subject of written submissions. Some grounds were opaque. Some would require an oral hearing and, possibly, leave to rely on further evidence (particularly those alleging a denial of procedural fairness and the complaint about the complainant's identity). In these circumstances, proceeding to determine the remaining grounds of appeal would have delayed this decision and increased the parties' costs. This would be inconsistent with the Tribunal's objective to resolve appeals as quickly and as flexibly as possible: see the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020 (TASCAT Act), s 10(1)(c) and (g).
2. For these reasons, I have decided not to determine grounds 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9, nor have I determined the agent's other, un-pleaded complaints about the Board's decision.

1. The appeal succeeds. The Board erred in finding the complaint to be substantiated in part. The Board's finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct of a minor nature and order cautioning the agent must be set aside.
2. I may substitute my own decision in its place: TASCAT Act, s 78(1)(c)(i). Because I am satisfied that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint, it should be dismissed under PALTA, s 100(a). This is more efficient and fairer to the agent than remitting the complaint to the Board under the TASCAT Act, s 78(1)(c)(ii).

1. The agent earlier made an application for costs, which I reserved. I will hear the parties as to costs.

1. I order:
   • The first respondent's decision be set aside and, in its place, the complaint be dismissed.
   • The parties file and serve any evidence and submissions in respect of costs within 14 days.
   • List the costs applications for hearing on a date to be fixed, to be in no fewer than 21 days.

[1] In B v Mental Health Tribunal [2020] TASSC 10 at [3], Blow CJ criticised the naming of a tribunal as a respondent to an appeal. It is unnecessary to determine the application of his Honour's observations, which related to a particularly statutory appeal right to a court, to the approach here. However, it does seem to me that the fact that this is a rehearing may militate against the Board being a party (cf a hearing de novo). I repeat that it is unnecessary to decide the point in this case. It is presently immaterial given that the Board has submitted save as to costs.