Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Lawry (Review and Regulation) [2025] VCAT 818

1. Under section 28A(1)(f) of the Estate Agents Act 1980 (Vic) the Act VCAT declares Debra Lawry to be ineligible to hold a licence or to be an agent's representative permanently.
2. Under section 28A(1)(f) of the Act VCAT declares Bovicelli Investments Pty Ltd to be ineligible to hold a licence or to be an agent's representative permanently.
3. Under section 28A(2) of the Act, Debra Lawry must pay a monetary penalty of $5,000.

1. Ms Debra Maree Lawry was issued with an individual estate agent's licence on 14 July 2016. Ms Lawry was at all relevant times the sole director and Officer in effective control ('OIEC') of Bovicelli Investments Pty Ltd trading as Ray White Romsey ('Bovicelli')[1]. Bovicelli has held a corporate estate agent's licence since 22 August 2019 and has carried on business as an estate agent.
2. On 19 August 2024 Ms Nicole Rich, the Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria ('CAV') made an application to the Tribunal for an inquiry to be held into the conduct of Ms Lawry and Bovicelli under section 25 of the Estate Agents Act 1980 (Vic) (the 'Act'). The application related to Ms Lawry and Bovicelli failing to cause accounts of trust money to be audited for the period 2019 to 2023.
3. The application has changed significantly since it was first made by CAV. As noted above, initially the matter was only about the respondents' failure to have the trust accounts audited. Ms Lawry attended a Directions Hearing for this matter on 24 September 2024. CAV advised that at the Directions Hearing she indicated that she acknowledged Bovicelli's operational shortfalls, and expressed a willingness to resolve the matter. Standard procedural orders were made by VCAT at the conclusion of the Directions Hearing.
4. However, it transpired that the same day Ms Lawry left the country. She also made herself the sole signatory of Bovicelli's business account and transferred a total of $156,000 in two withdrawals from Bovicelli's Sales Trust account to the business account. It appears that these amounts were then used to pay business and personal bills and employees' wages. Three days later she transferred a further $37,000 to the business account and it appears these funds were used to pay her personal credit card and a business loan.
5. There has been no further contact by Ms Lawry with VCAT or CAV since the Directions Hearing and orders have been made for substituted service[2].
6. An amended application was filed on 30 January 2025 which set out the following amended grounds:
   • Ms Lawry (as the sole director and OIEC of Bovicelli) authorising and permitting a deficiency in the sales trust account on three occasions without giving a sufficient and satisfactory explanation (which related to the three withdrawals on 24 and 27 September 2024).
   • Ms Lawry (as the sole director and OIEC of Bovicelli) failing to cause Bovicelli's trust accounts to be audited for four financial years. (2019 to 2023)
   • Ms Lawry as OIEC failing to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the Act.
   • Ms Lawry and Bovicelli failing to exercise all due skill, care and diligence in performing the functions of an estate agent.
   • Ms Lawry and Bovicelli engaging in conduct that was unprofessional and detrimental to the reputation or interests of the estate agency industry.
   • Ms Lawry and Bovicelli not being fit and proper persons to hold a licence.
7. A Tribunal Book which included CAV's submissions was filed on 30 June 2025.
8. Based on the affidavit of Ms Chiu, sworn 23 July 2025, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Tribunal Book, CAV's submissions and amended application were served on the respondents in accordance with VCAT's orders.
9. A hearing was held by video conference on 27 August 2025. There was no appearance by Ms Lawry or Bovicelli. I am satisfied that Ms Lawry was notified of the hearing and had chosen not to participate. I reserved my decision.
10. I have found the allegations proven and determined:
    • to declare that Ms Lawry and Bovicelli be ineligible to hold a licence or to be an agent's representative permanently.
    • to impose a penalty of $5,000.00 on Ms Lawry.

1. At the hearing Ms Chiu clarified that Ms Lawry's licence lapsed on 8 August 2025 and so she no longer held a licence. Bovicelli's licence was cancelled on 11 November 2024 due to the company entering external administration. Ms Chui advised the company was in the process of being wound up, but this had not yet occurred.
2. I raised with Ms Chiu that the material in the Tribunal Book indicated that the first respondent was also known by the name Debra Maree Watchman, and inquired what were the circumstances of the name change and when did it occur. Ms Chiu explained that she appeared to use the two names simultaneously. There was not a date on which she changed her name. Her licence was in the name Lawry and she departed the country using the name Lawry. However she appeared to use the name Watchman in dealings with her clients. I am satisfied based on the material in the Tribunal Book that Debra Maree Watchman and Debra Maree Lawry are the same person.
3. At all relevant times Ms Lawry operated the following two Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited (the 'Bendigo Bank') statutory trust accounts for Bovicelli, being:

(a) BSB 636-000, Account Number 169074416, Account Name 'Bovicelli Investments Pty Ltd PM Trust (the 'Rental Trust Account'); and

(b) BSB 636-000, Account Number 169074523, Account Name 'Bovicelli Investments Pty Ltd Sales Trust (the 'Sales Trust Account').

1. From 23 August 2023 Ms Lawry was the sole signatory and person authorised to operate the Sales Trust Account.[3]
2. Ms Lawry was also a signatory for the Bovicelli's Operating business account (Business account) and from 24 September she was the sole signatory.[4]

1. In 2024, Ms Lawry and Bovicelli were engaged independently by four vendors[5] to act as the estate agent in the sale of their property. The properties for sale were:
   • Knox Road, Romsey, VIC 3434 (the 'Knox Property')[6];
   • Dunsford Street, Lancefield VIC 3435 (the 'Dunsford Property')[7];
   • Robb Drive, Romsey VIC 3434 (the 'Robb Property')[8]; and
   • Lineham Street, Lancefield VIC 3535 (the 'Lineham Property')[9].
2. All the contracts of sale executed in relation to the four properties included the following condition to manage the payment of purchasers' deposits:

Where there is an estate agent acting for the vendor, the purchaser must pay the deposit to the vendor's licensed estate agent.

1. Between 4 August 2024 and 18 September 2024, Bovicelli received the following deposits in the Sales Trust Account[10] pursuant to the executed contracts of:

1. The properties settled on the following dates:
   • The Knox Property settled on 10 October 2024;
   • The Dunsford Property settled on 15 October 2024;
   • The Robb Property settled on 22 October 2024; and
   • The Lineham Property settled on 21 November 2024.
2. As the Knox Property only settled on 10 October 2024, between 18 September 2024 and 9 October 2024, the Sales Trust Account should have held a minimum daily balance of $252,500.00, being the sum of the deposits paid by the four vendors as deposits for the four properties as of 18 September 2024.
3. Between 4 August 2024 (the day of the receipt of the first instalment of the deposit for the Knox Property) and 9 October 2024 (the day before the first of the four properties, the Knox Property, settled), Ms Lawry and Bovicelli were not entitled to access the deposits.
4. On 3 October 2024, Bendigo Bank notified CAV that they had detected suspicious activity in the Sales Trust Account.
5. The Sales Trust Account's bank statement showed that between 24 September 2024 and 27 September 2024, Ms Lawry withdrew the following three sums from the account and there was one deposit:
   • On 24 September 2024, $100,000 was withdrawn causing the Sales Trust Account's balance to drop to $156,815,469, $95,684,54 below the minimum sum of the deposits that should have been held in the trust account, thereby causing the first instance of a deficiency.
   • On the same day, a further sum of $56,000 was withdrawn resulting in the Sales Trust Account's balance reducing to $100,815.46 causing a further deficiency of $56,000.
   • On 26 September 2024, a deposit of $36,500 was paid into the account for a matter unrelated to the four transactions for the four properties.
   • On 27 September 2024, $37,000 was withdrawn from the Sales Trust Account resulting in the balance reducing to $100,315.46, causing a further deficiency of $37,000.
6. As Ms Lawry was the sole signatory to the account and person authorised to operate the Sales Trust Account the inference was that the funds were withdrawn by Ms Lawry.
7. The three withdrawals caused on three occasions a deficiency in the Sales Trust Account to the sum of $188,684.64. The three amounts withdrawn were paid into the Business account.
8. At the time of the first transfer of $100,000 the business account was in debit and $79,684 was used to pay both personal and company bills. When the $56,000 was withdrawn, $16,000 was used to pay personal credit cards amongst other payments. After the $37,000 was deposited it was used to pay wages and another $10,000 from Mr Lawry's credit cards and also to pay business loans.[11]
9. Ms Chiu submitted that although these amounts had not been formally traced and the description of the withdrawals was taken from the bank statement, and therefore was what was entered by the person facilitating the transactions, the Tribunal should infer that as Ms Lawry was the only signatory of the business account from 24 September 2024 that she facilitated the transactions.
10. Section 90(1) of the Act relevantly provides that if at any time there is a deficiency of money in or payable into any trust account of any estate agent the estate agent shall, unless he gives a sufficient and satisfactory explanation of the deficiency, be guilty of an indictable offence.
11. No explanation has been provided for the deficiencies.

1. CAV uses a database system called the Global Entity Model (the 'GEM Database') to record and store information relevant to the maintenance and administration of estate agents' licences. It also operates as a 'front-end portal', known as a MyCAV account, for estate agents to fulfil their reporting obligations, including in relation to the auditing and closure of trust accounts.[12]
2. On 6 December 2023, CAV searched the GEM Database for information in relation to the Sales Trust Account. The GEM Database contained no record of CAV having received annual audits in respect of the Sales Trust Account, despite Ms Lawry and Bovicelli Investments notifying CAV on 17 October 2019 that an account had been opened on 1 October 2019[13].
3. Section 64(1) of the Act provides that within three months after 30 June in each year any person who carried on business as an estate agent during the whole or any part of the previous financial year shall cause his accounts of trust money to be audited.
4. CAV submitted that Ms Lawry was aware of her regulatory obligations and deliberately chose not to comply. Between June 2020 and November 2023 CAV repeatedly reminded Ms Lawry regarding the auditing of trust accounts.[14]
5. Ms Lawry contacted CAV on 26 September 2023 and advised that she was in the process of appointing an auditor to finalise the audits for the financial years ending 30 June 2021, 2022, and 2023[15]
6. Ms Lawry paid the infringements that were issued against Bovicelli Investments for failure to lodge trust account audits for the financial years 2019/2020 and 2020/2021.

1. I am comfortably satisfied based on the materials in the Tribunal Book, clarified by Ms Chiu at the hearing, that the facts set out above been made out. Although the funds transferred from the Sales Trust Account to the Business Account and the funds transferred from there to various other accounts have not been formally traced, I am satisfied based on the timing of the transactions and the fact that Ms Lawry was the sole signatory on the accounts that she facilitated these transactions. I draw the inference, based on the descriptions in the bank statements that most of the funds were used for business expenses and personal expenses.
2. I now turn to the grounds.

1. Ms Lawry (as the sole Director and OIEC of Bovicelli) and Bovicelli failed to comply with the Act by knowingly authorising and permitting Bovicelli to cause there to be a deficiency of money in Bovicelli's Sales Trust Account on three instances between 24 and 27 September 2024 without giving a sufficient and satisfactory explanation for so causing the deficiencies in contravention of section 90(1) of the Act.
2. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this ground is established.

1. Ms Lawry (as the sole director and OIEC of Bovicelli) and Bovicelli failed to cause its trust accounts for the whole or part of the 2019 to 2023 financial years to be audited within three months after 30 June in each year, in contravention of section 64(1) of the Act.
2. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this ground is established.

1. Ms Lawry, as OIEC, failed to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the Act, in breach of section 29B(2)(d) of the Act which provides:

take reasonable steps to ensure that any estate agents, agents' representatives or other employees of the business comply with the provisions of this Act, the Sale of Land Act 1962 and any other laws relevant to the conduct of the business while they are engaged in that business

1. In failing to cause the accounts of the Sales Trust Account and Rental Trust Accounts to be audited for four consecutive years Ms Lawry failed to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the Act, and so breached section 29B(2)(d) of the Act.

1. Ms Lawry and Bovicelli did not exercise all due skill, care and diligence in performing the functions of an estate agent, in contravention of regulation 13(1) of the Estate Agents (Professional Conduct) Regulations 2008 (the 'Regulations').
2. The meaning of the words 'skill, care and diligence' under the Regulations is yet to be judicially determined and accordingly, those words should be given their ordinary meanings: from the Macquarie Dictionary those meanings are:
   • skill: to do something well; competent excellence in performance;
   • care: serious attention, solicitude, heed caution, protection; and
   • diligence: constant and earnest effort to accomplish what is undertaken
3. In interpreting the level of skill, care and diligence to be required of an estate agent, the Tribunal should have regard to the clear intention of Parliament in relation to the regulatory regime, namely, that the highest standards are observed in the real estate industry.[16]
4. The deficiencies in the Sales Trust Account were significant and were not remedied by Ms Lawry. The failure to cause the trust accounts to be audited had extended over a four year period and as noted above they had never been audited. She caused deficiencies to occur in the Sales Trust account.
5. I am comfortably satisfied that this ground is established.

1. Ms Lawry and Bovicelli engaged in conduct that was unprofessional and detrimental to the reputation or interests of the estate agency industry, in contravention of regulation 13(2) of the Regulations. The term 'unprofessional conduct' is not defined in the Regulations or in the Act.
2. In Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Cohen[17] Member French noted the tradition test for what constitutes unprofessional conduct was:

... conduct would be 'reasonably regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by...[the respondent's] professional brethren of good repute and competency'. It also captures conduct that 'fall[s] short of, to a substantial degree, the standard of professional conduct observed or approved by members of the profession of good repute and competency

1. In Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Murray, Senior Member Dea took the following approach:

The term 'unprofessional conduct' is not defined in the Regulations or in the Estate Agents Act. In the earlier matter involving Mr Murray, the tribunal discussed the term and disagreed with the approach to that term taken in Acting Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Cohen. Relevantly, in the earlier proceeding involving Mr Murray, the tribunal concluded that, in order to find a breach of regulation 13(2), it was not necessary to find that the conduct would be reasonably regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by peers of good repute and competency. Nor was it necessary to find that there had been conduct which fell short to a substantial degree the standards of professional conduct observed by peers of good repute and competency. What was required was an assessment of the particular conduct. I agree with that approach.[18]

Footnotes deleted.

1. Senior Member Dea found one failure to comply with the annual statutory obligation which is directed at the protection of client's funds and their financial interests might be a sufficient basis for a finding of unprofessional conduct.[19]
2. The particular conduct of Ms Lawry in not causing the Trust Accounts to be audited, indicating to CAV and VCAT that she was willing to address deficiencies in her business yet the same day leaving Australia and withdrawing money from the Sales Trust Account and using some of the funds for her own use in very serious, in any event, falls substantially below the standard of professional conduct observed by peers of good repute and competency. I am comfortably satisfied that this ground is established.

1. Ms Lawry and Bovicelli are not fit and proper persons to hold an estate agent's licence under section 25(1)(c) of the Act.
2. CAV contends that the Tribunal ought to find that Ms Lawry and Bovicelli are not of good character or a fit and proper person to hold a licence having regard to the conduct set out above. Particular attention was drawn to the need for estate agents to act honestly, to properly deal with trust funds, to comply with statutory obligations and act properly at all times. Ms Lawry was a director of Bovicelli and the OIEC and she was required to act appropriately in respect of his own licence but also as the person accountable for the corporate licence.
3. The term 'fit and proper person' is not defined in the Act but its meaning has been the subject of much judicial comment in a range of circumstances. It does not carry defined criteria but allows for a wide range of matters to be considered. It includes, not only whether a person has the necessary honesty, knowledge and ability, but also whether the person is possessed of sufficient moral integrity and rectitude of character to permit them to be accredited to the public as a person to be trusted.
4. I am comfortably satisfied that as a result of Ms Lawry's conduct detailed above that she and Bovicelli are not fit and proper persons to hold an estate agent's licence.

1. Section 28A of the Act provides that after conducting an inquiry the Tribunal if it considers it appropriate may order a range of determinations including reprimanding the person; cancelling an existing licence and disqualifying the person from re-applying for a specified period or permanently; and/or imposing a penalty. As the licences of Mr Lawry and Bovicllei have lapsed, the Tribunal is unable to suspend or cancel their licences.
2. Under section 28A(2), the Tribunal may also impose a penalty not exceeding $5000.00 on the person and specify when the penalty must be paid.
3. CAV have contended that both Ms Lawry and Bovicelli should be disqualified from holding a licence indefinitely and they should be required to pay the maximum penalty of $5000.00.
4. CAV referred to Director of Consumer Affairs v Pedersen ('Pederson')[20] where Senior Member Dea stated

The estate agent industry is highly regulated. The public expects estate agents to be skilled, professional and honest. The public also expects strict compliance with all requirements arising from estate agents access to and use of all monies held in or required to be paid into trust accounts in order to minimise any possible risk to those funds. Estate agents who adopt a less than rigorous approach and attitude to complying with regulatory requirements, particularly over an extended period, place their clients at unacceptable risk.[21]

1. The Tribunal in that case noted that when considering whether a person should continue to work as a licensed estate agent, there are two matters raised which focus on the public interest: the protection of the public and the necessity of maintaining standards in the conduct of the profession. A very high standard of care, compliance and honesty is required for estate agents. The Tribunal is to have regard to specific deterrence and general deterrence when making orders.
2. I agree with the reasoning in Pederson. The public and other estate agents must know that agents who breach the laws in relation to trust accounts face serious consequences.
3. Here the conduct was particularly egregious. The trust accounts held by Bovicelli have never been audited since they were established. Fines had been paid for the failure to arrange an audit acknowledging the shortcomings. Ms Lawry advised the regulator she was in the process of engaging an auditor when clearly she was not. The day Ms Lawry attended the Directions Hearing and indicated a willingness to resolve the issues with the auditing of the trusts accounts, she left the country, made herself the sole signatory on the business account and inappropriately withdrew sums of money from the Sales Trust Account. This is something she must have planned in advance. She has been less than transparent in her dealings with both the regulator and the Tribunal. She has provided no explanation or excuse for her conduct. She had demonstrated no remorse. There is a complete absence of mitigating factors. She is someone from whom the public needs protecting. She has harmed the reputation of the profession. I have found that she and the company are not fit and proper persons to hold estate agent's licences.
4. This is a case where both specific and general deterrence have a significant role.

1. I consider it appropriate that Ms Lawry and Bovicelli be declared ineligible to hold an estate agent's licence or work as an agent's representative to protect the public by preventing them from practising again. Also deter other estate agents from acting in a similar manner and to demonstrate to other estate agents and the community more generally, that conduct of this kind is very serious. That order is appropriate having regard to the very serious nature of the breaches committed by Ms Lawry and my finding that she is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence and has engaged in conduct which renders her unfit to hold a licence.
2. CAV submitted that Ms Lawry's conduct was blatant and bold. She appears to have benefited financially from her misconduct.
3. CAV also emphasised that if she was not disqualified from holding a licence, as there has been no claim on the Victorian Property Fund[22], the franchisor having covered the shortfall to enable the settlements to go ahead, there would be no basis for refusing to re-register her.
4. It was submitted that Ms Lawry and Bovicelli should be permanently disqualified from being an estate agent and given the seriousness of her conduct and her lack of explanation or any attempt to redress matters and as there are no mitigating factors I regard this as appropriate and so order.

1. CAV sought that the maximum financial penalty be imposed on both Ms Lawry and Bovicelli. Bovicelli was in the process of being wound up and CAV indicated that the only reason it had not been wound up was that there is a concern that some clients may still have a claim against the company. For example there may be a rental provider whose rent has not been disbursed or other creditors that has not been paid. In these circumstances I queried the utility of imposing a financial penalty on the company. CAV indicated its main concern was that a financial penalty be imposed on Ms Lawry. As the company is in the process of being wound up, I have decided not to impose a financial penalty on Bovicelli.
2. I have however no hesitation in imposing a financial penalty on Ms Lawry and in the circumstances the maximum penalty is appropriate and I so order.

[1] Section 93A of the Estate Agents Act has the effect that section 195 of the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 (Vic) applies to officers of bodies corporate, such as Ms Lawry. The consequence is that the Tribunal has the power to find that Ms Lawry is personally liable for conduct of the company.

[2] Orders dated 8 April 2025 and 13 June 2025.

[5] The exact addresses and of properties and the names of the vendors have been omitted to protect their privacy .

[16] Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Bill Kaye & Co Pty Ltd [2017] VCAT 942.

[17] [2013] VCAT 2146 at [104].

[18] [2016] VCAT 612, at [111].

[19] Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Murray [2016] VCAT 612, at [112.]

[20] [2019] VCAT 528.

[22] The Victorian Property Fund ('VPF') is a trust fund established under the Act and administered by CAV. The VPF provides compensation for individuals and corporations when an estate agent, conveyancer or their respective representative has misused or misappropriated trust money or property in the course of their work. See section 14(50(c) of the Act.