PSMG Pty Limited v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2025] NSWCATOD 83

"RESOLVED pursuant to section 49(2) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015, Strata Plus or Professional Strata Management Group, be appointed with full delegation as the strata managing agents of strata scheme 93087 and pursuant to section 273 of the Act that an authority begiven for the common seal of the Owners Corporation to be affixed to the Agency Agreement by the Secretary and any other member of the strata committee or owners appointed to finalize the appointment."

1. It was resolved by the meeting that PSMG be appointed as the strata managing agent.
2. Despite my finding that the SM Agreement was not validly adopted at the AGM on 6 October 2021, I find there was nothing dishonest about Mr Wang's conduct in him believing that he was and did act upon that belief for the following reasons.
3. Mr Wang was asked by Fion Zhan (a lot owner in the scheme) to submit a proposal for PSMG to be appointed as strata manager. He, at the time, was also the Secretary of the Strata Committee. Mr Wang gave evidence that he prepared and signed a cover letter dated 26 August 2021 attaching PSMG's proposal. This is not in dispute and I find accordingly. As set out above, the document that was missing from the notice of the AGM, and which was not tabled at the AGM, was the SM Agreement. I also find that the SM Agreement for the alternate proposed strata managing agent was not attached to the notice for the AGM.
4. Mr Wang relied upon his explanation as set out at [107]. What is absent in Mr Wang's evidence is that Senior Member Tibbey found in the Ho matter at first instance, that PSMG had failed to provide a copy of the proposed new SM Agreement in advance of the AGM so that lot owners could consider it prior to the AGM. In the cross-examination of Mr Wang in the Dawes proceeding, Mr Wang agreed with the cross-examiner as follows:

"... on 28 May 2020, you became aware that strata agency agreements should be provided with the notice of meetings at AGMs, isn't that correct?

A: Yes, should be, yep."

1. Mr Wang went on to accept with the cross-examiner that if the SM Agreement was not provided, strata owners could not study the SM Agreement.
2. Mr Wang was asked the following:

"Q: You knew as at 28 May 2020 you had to provide a copy of the strata management agreement to lot owners.

A: Yes but not to the standard required. I took two copies to a meeting.

Q: Are you suggesting that taking a copy of the strata management agreement to the general meeting to be approved is adequate?

A: No.

Q: Before Senior Member Tibbey made that decision did you think it was sufficient to take two copies to the AGM?

A: Yes.

Q: When did your position change?

A: After that order, 28 May 2020 order.

Q: Did your practice change at PSMG?

A: Yes. We send our agreement out with the meeting notice and a link to allow owners to request a copy.

Q: You're talking about when PSMG are the strata manager?

A: Yes."

1. The cross-examiner in this hearing invited Mr Wang to explain why he had not provided a copy of the SM Agreement with the AGM notice for 6 October 2021. He was not able to provide an explanation about whether he did or did not, but, he maintained that he took two copies to present at the meeting. Mr Wang said that he accepted this was a mistake and his process has now changed where a fee proposal is provided together with the agreement itself.
2. Mr Wang was not asked in cross-examination whether he did not genuinely believe that he was entitled to sign the strata management agency agreement as Secretary of the strata committee, nor that he did not genuinely believe that the strata management agency agreement had been approved at the AGM. To make a finding of dishonesty requires specific allegations to be put to a witness. As a matter of fairness, without those specific allegations being put to Mr Wang, I am not able to make a finding of dishonesty.
3. However, Mr Wang's evidence was confusing when he answered the question by the cross-examiner that while he knew he had to provide a copy of the strata management agreement to lot owners as and from 28 May 2020, following the decision in the Ho matter, that he was not aware of the "standard required" in doing so. Mr Wang's answer is inconsistent with the findings made by the Tribunal in the Ho matter, both at first instance and by the Appeal Panel. However, he was not challenged further on his answer in this regard and the weight I can give to his answer is also limited. At best, I find Mr Wang has engaged in conduct which could be described as 'sharp practice' and that he ought to have known, based on the decision in Ho, that a copy of the SM Agreement should have been provided to lot owners. But, I am not able to make a positive finding that Mr Wang acted dishonestly.
4. The contravention is not proved.

Contravention 5 - PSMG did not estimate how much money the owners corporation needed to credit to its capital works fund for actual and expected expenditure for 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 in breach of s 79(2) of the SSM Act.

79 Estimates to be prepared of contributions to administrative and capital works funds

...

(2) An owners corporation must, at each annual general meeting, estimate how much money it will need to credit to its capital works fund for actual and expected expenditure -

(a) for painting or repainting any part of the common property which is a building or other structure, and

(b) to acquire personal property, and

(c) to renew or replace personal property, and

(d) to renew or replace fixtures and fittings that are part of the common property, and

(e) to replace or repair the common property, and

(f) to meet other expenses of a capital nature.

Note.

Expenses of a capital nature would include expenses in relation to major repairs or improvements to the common property or personal property of the owners corporation, such as replacement of roofing, guttering or fences and the like.

1. The alleged contravention relates to the proposed budget for Strata Plan 90401 prepared by PSMG. The contention is that the budget did not itemise any of the capital expenditure. It is not in contest, and I find, that from 25 March 2021, the relevant Strata Plan appointed PSMG as the strata manager. I also accept Mr Wang's evidence that PSMG took over the building on 26 April 2021. Mr Wang gave evidence that when PSMG takes over management of a new strata plan, he transfers all the financial data relating to income and expenditure onto PSMG's accounting system. This has the effect that previous financial information held by the prior strata manager, 'BCS', was reproduced in PSMG's records and will, if again reproduced, be printed on PSMG letterhead. Mr Wang was cross examined on the budget (p431/432 R2). The cross-examination did not disturb Mr Wang's evidence. I accept that, after handover, the expenditures and income for Strata Plan 90401 for 2020/2021 were printed on PSMG's letterhead which included the budget prepared by BCS.
2. I accept that PSMG had no role in preparing the financial budget for year end 2020/2021 for the subject Strata Plan. This is because it was prepared by BCS, before PSMG was the strata manager.
3. I accept that the actual expenditure for the 2020/2021 financial year was $128,103.77. The capital works fund expense was $115,901.98.
4. Mr Wang gave evidence that he has calculated $70,051.98 was spent prior to PSMG's appointment. I accept that evidence. I also accept Mr Wang's evidence that $23,030 was spent on urgent capital repair works after PSMG's appointment.
5. Mr Wang's evidence included that PSMG prepared a draft budget for review by the Strata Committee for the 2021/2022 financial year. I accept Mr Wang's evidence that PSMG's usual practice for budgets in a large strata scheme was to provide to the strata committee, before presenting it to the owners corporation for an annual general meeting, a budget for comment and approval. Mr Wang gave evidence that he was instructed by the Strata Committee to reduce the contribution in his proposed budget for capital works from $113,000 to $60,000. I accept Mr Wang's evidence that this was to top up the budget and allocate no value to any specific expense item as the Strata Committee was not aware of any capital repairs that they knew of. I accept Mr Wang's evidence that he prepared a budget to be approved by the Strata Committee that included a capital works budget and expenses (p773 a,b,c A1). The budget corroborates Mr Wang's evidence and was printed before the budget presented in the CCD hearing. I note that this information was not before the CCD when adverse findings were made against Mr Wang. They were before me in this proceeding. Mr Wang's evidence included that these instructions came to him from the Strata Committee by way of a WeChat group. Those records from the WeChat group are no longer available as the Strata Committee members have changed and the WeChat group was deleted. This was not challenged in cross-examination.
6. I accept Mr Wang's evidence that PSMG prepared a notice of agenda for the AGM for 14 December 2021 in accordance with the instructions of the Strata Committee where a proposed contribution to the capital works fund of $60,000 was included in the documentation.
7. I have considered the Commissioner's submissions that the proposed budget for the 2022/2023 year shows a deficit of $128,103.77 in capital works fund for the 2021/2022 year. I note that this is a budget deficit, not a deficit in actual funds. This is demonstrated by the fact that the closing balance of the capital works fund at the end of the 2021/2022 year was $37,396.97. I find accordingly.
8. I am not satisfied contravention 5 is established and proved. This is because I accept Mr Wang's evidence, that he provided a draft budget for capital repairs which the Strata Committee refused to accept. I have also considered that despite the Strata Committee having delegated various functions to a managing agent, s 54(2) of the SMA Act does not preclude the Strata Committee from exercising those functions itself. I find that Mr Wang was acting on instructions of the Strata Committee and had prepared the draft budget which is included in the evidence before me. There is no evidence to the contrary.
9. I find contravention 5 is not proved.

Contravention 6 - PSMG expended money set aside for façade cladding to pay plumbing and waterproofing invoices in breach of s 86(1) of the PSA Act.

1. Strata Plan Number 90401 Owners Corporation on 21 July 2021 called an extraordinary general meeting to be held on 18 August 2021 to review and approve quotations for cladding and repair and replacement. That meeting was rescheduled to occur on 31 August 2021. On that next date, the Owners Corporation passed a motion to raise a special levy of $1,046,650 to replace cladding on the façade of the strata complex.
2. The Respondent contends that PSMG had used the money from the special levy allocated funds to pay plumbing expenses of $7,115.50 between April and October 2022 and waterproofing expenses to the value of $32,820 in June 2022 to Eternal Glory.
3. The particular invoice raised during the hearing was in the amount of $11,725 (plus GST of $1,172.50). The invoice was rendered to fix water leakage around windows and a skylight, including waterproofing and silicon. The invoice is recorded as being paid out of the capital works fund on 23 May 2022.
4. The Applicants contend that at the AGM held on 27 January 2022, it was resolved to raise $90,000 in contribution towards the capital works fund and that plumbing expenses were paid out of that fund. The Respondent contends that the contravention is that while the amount being paid from the capital works fund may have occurred, it was not budgeted for under 79(2) of the SSM Act. The contravention goes to the lack of specificity of the estimate.
5. The Respondent in closing submissions contends that the contravention is that it "might" have been paid from the capital works fund but not budgeted for and that the expense does not fall within what Mr Wang contends it was for. This has not been made out.
6. The Minutes of the AGM record that contributions to the capital works fund in accordance with s 79(2) of the SSM Act be determined for the sum of $90,000 plus GST. I prefer the contention of the Applicants that the AGM approved additional capital works fund and the plumbing expenses, including waterproofing, and the Eternal Glory Invoice in the sum of $12,897.50 was paid out of that fund. Importantly, the invoice was not paid out of the special levy funds raised to pay for the replacement cladding.
7. I find that contravention 6 is not proved.

Contravention 8 - PSMG did not call an EGM until legal action was threatened in NCAT, contrary to s 19 of the SSM Act.

19 Other general meetings

(1) The secretary or a strata committee of an owners corporation may convene a general meeting (that is not an annual general meeting) of the owners corporation at any time.

(2) The secretary of the owners corporation, or another officer if the secretary is absent, must convene a general meeting (that is not an annual general meeting) of the owners corporation as soon as practicable, and not later than 14 days after, receiving a qualified request.

(3) A meeting may be convened on a qualified request even if the first annual general meeting has not been held.

(4) A request is a qualified request for the purposes of this section if it is made by one or more owners of a lot or lots in the strata scheme having a total unit entitlement of at least one-quarter of the aggregate unit entitlements.

1. The owners of SP90410 first raised issues in March 2022 about the colour of new cladding that was installed on the building. A general meeting was called by the SP90410 Owners Corporation only after proceedings had progressed in the Tribunal in the CCD. The Tribunal in its decision concerning the Strata Plan 90410 the Tribunal found that the Owners Corporation or Strata Manager "has failed to hold meetings of the Owners Corporation unless threatened with proceedings in the Tribunal".
2. The Respondent contends that the Applicants have committed an offence by contravening s 19 of the SSM Act for not calling a general meeting.
3. It is not challenged that Mr Stuart McLean had been in correspondence with PSMG about the colour of cladding to be replaced on the building of the strata plan. The Applicants rely upon Mr Wang's evidence where he states at paragraph 100 of his Affidavit "PSMG did not refuse to call an EGM or fail to act in accordance with s 19 of the SSM Act. The decision not to call an EGM was made by the strata committee, just as the decision to call an EGM after the threat to commence proceedings, was made by the strata committee".
4. Neither the cross-examination, nor the evidence before the Tribunal, establishes that Mr Wang is incorrect in his version of events. I accept his evidence in this regard. For this reason alone, I find the contravention is not established.
5. Further, I also note that s 19(4) of the SSM Act defines a request to be a 'qualified request'. A qualified request for the purposes of that section, is, if the request is made by one or more owners of a lot or lots in the strata scheme having a total unit entitlement of at least one-quarter of the average unit entitlement. It is only where a 'qualified request' is made that the secretary of the owners corporation, or any other officer if the secretary is absent, must convene a general meeting pursuant to s 19(2) of that Act. There is no evidence which would satisfy the Tribunal that Mr McLean's request was a 'qualified request' pursuant to that provision.
6. I find this contravention is not proved.

Contravention 9 - Records of the strata roll were not kept up to date for inspection in breach of s 182 of the SSM Act.

182 Requests for inspection of records of owners corporation

...

(3) Items to be made available for inspection The owners corporation must make the following items available for inspection by the person who makes the request or the person's agent -

1. The Respondent relies upon the contention that despite PSMG claiming that all records have been produced when requested including the strata roll and the version produced in 2022, as not the current roll at the time, the Tribunal in the McLean matter was satisfied that through its agent, the Strata Plan Owners Corporation "had failed to provide all the records of the Owners Corporation for inspection when requested on multiple occasions". The Respondent contends that the Applicants contravened s 182.
2. In Mr Wang's evidence in chief he said that PSMG's practice has always been to keep hard copies of the strata roll. More recently, digital copies have been maintained. In circumstances where PSMG is appointed as a managing strata agent, it prints a hard copy of the strata roll. The printed copies contain a date when the document is printed. As lots are sold during the period in which PSMG is the strata manager, it has a practice of adding a page to the records to reflect the new lot owner while also retaining the documents of the old owner. Each new lot owner page would record the date on which it was printed. The hard copy documents would include pages with a range of dates. This was done according to Mr Wang to avoid printing the whole document each time there was a sale of a lot. All hard copies of the strata plan were handed over to Ace Body Corporate, the new managing agent. Mr Wang did not retain documentary evidence of the practice for the strata plan as he only holds electronic versions of the records for the current owners. His evidence was not challenged. I accept Mr Wang's evidence.
3. The Applicants tendered a photograph of black folders on shelves. Relevantly, Strata Plan 78095 is depicted on two black folders containing what appears to be paper and the spine label including 'corr/sroll ledgers/bank/?'.
4. Mr Wang in his oral evidence said that in 2022 there was no electronic copy available. Mr Wang's evidence concerning a hard copy of the strata roll being kept was not challenged in cross-examination. I accept Mr Wang's evidence.
5. Mr Rez in his cross-examination denied that there were hard copies of the strata roll within the PSMG offices. In answer to a question about staff printing out the details of new owners for a strata plan and placing those in a folder he answered "Not to my knowledge". Mr Rez gave evidence that there were black folders kept in the office but they were not strata rolls. He accepted that the folders contained names of lot owners but "it was not a roll".
6. When Mr Rez was shown the photograph of the folders he said he was unsure about what was contained in those folders but maintained that there was no hard copy of the strata roll.
7. I do not accept Mr Rez's evidence that there was only a digital copy of the strata roll. I prefer Mr Wang's evidence together with the photograph depicted in that the names of lot owners were updated as lots were sold and placed into the folders on his shelves. Mr Rez did not dispute Mr Wang's evidence, in his response to a question about staff printing out the details of new owners for a strata plan and placing those in a folder, where he answered: "Not to my knowledge". Mr Rez's evidence about incidences where he was not able to answer requests of lot owners to obtain a copy of the strata roll, was vague, it lacked dates, times and other information identifying his particular allegation. His evidence about the strata roll is unreliable. I place no weight on his evidence about the strata roll issue. For the reasons set out below, Mr Rez's evidence is given cautious weight and I prefer the evidence of Mr Wang in this respect.
8. I find the contravention is not proved.

Contravention 10 - Mr Wang refused to prepare an NCAT application for a defects claim and advised the Owners of Strata Corporation SP 94415 that lawyers ought to be engaged to prepare the application too close to the expiry of the statutory warranty period, in breach of Schedule 1, cl 9 of the PSA Reg 2022.

1. Schedule 1 of the Regulation is headed "General rules of conduct applying to all agents and assistant agents". The schedule includes cl 9, which provides:

9 To act in accordance with client's instructions

An agent must act in accordance with a client's instructions unless to do so is -

(a) contrary to the Act or regulations under the Act, or

(b) otherwise unlawful.

1. The Respondent contends the decision in the SP 94415 matter, the Tribunal found Mr Wang to have performed the agreement unsatisfactorily for the following reasons:

(1) failed to give adequate notice to the SP94415 Owners Corporation to engage solicitors to prepare an application to the Tribunal in respect of major defects;

(2) including an alleged failure to give adequate notice to engage solicitors to prepare a Tribunal application concerning major defects;

(3) knowing by July 2022 that the statutory warranty period for lodging proceedings would expire in October 2022, despite emails passing between the Owners Corporation in August and early September urging action, Mr Wang only advised on 13 September 2022 that the Owners Corporation should engage a solicitor, as it was beyond PSMG's service scope.

1. The Respondent contends that this conduct was unsatisfactory performance of the agreement as found by the Tribunal and amounts to a breach of the Regulation.
2. The Applicants contend that cl 9 must be read in context. In that regard the agency agreement is governed by the SM Agreement. Performing legal work is not part of the agreement. Mr Wang advised the Strata Committee to obtain a lawyer and the fact that he did not do this work himself is not a breach of the Regulation. Despite the contention by the Respondent that Mr Wang failed to notify the strata corporation earlier, and too close to the limitation date, the fact is that the application was lodged on time and no harm was suffered.
3. The evidence reveals that on 22 July 2022, Mr Wang sent an email to the Strata Committee advising that the statutory warranty for major defects for the scheme was to expire in late October that year. He raised the issue of obtaining a defects consultant to defend any 'fight' between the parties. On 12 August 2022, 'Jenny' from the Strata Committee wrote to Mr Wang requesting that he record defect issues with the building with Fair Trading amongst other things.
4. A further email dated 26 August 2022 was sent by 'Adrienne' to Mr Wang again advising of the six year limitation period ending on 26 October 2022. The request included: "This means it is essential that you lodge our major defects with NCAT as soon as possible in case our statutory warranties are breached".
5. On 29 August 2022, Mr Wang replied by email to Adrienne stating "This will be done next week".
6. On 11 September 2022, Mr Wang apparently had not lodged an application for a defects claim with NCAT and it was again requested by Adrienne that he do so "as a matter of urgency".
7. On 13 September 2022, Mr Wang wrote to the Strata Committee, stating amongst other things:

"I have given it another thought and would advise OC engage a legal expert to commission the task as it is beyond the standard service scope of strata management. The deadline of the lodgement is 26/10/2022 as SC confirmed. Registration (or lodgement) is pretty straightforward for a legal expert. OC has ample time to have it done. Please advise if you need further help in this regard."

1. The relevant SM Agreement provides for agreed services in Schedule A and additional services in Schedule B. Clause 2 of the agreement requires that before delegating to PSMG any of the functions specified in Schedule B (the additional services) the owners corporation must have the necessary authority of its general meeting or strata committee (as applicable) to delegate the relevant functions to PSMG. I note that at the AGM held which reappointed PSMG the meeting resolved to reappoint PSMG (motion 16) and that all powers, duties and authorities under ss 50, 52 and 54 of the SSM Act continue to be delegated to PSMG.
2. However, clause 2 of the agreement provides:

"The delegation in respect of which the owners corporation requests the additional services must be in writing, signed by a person duly authorised by the owners corporation."

1. It is this additional step which does not appear in the evidence to have occurred. That is authorisation of PSMG to be granted a delegation to carry out the additional Schedule B services. This is relevant because the additional services include the preparation and lodgement of an application for mediation, adjudication, tribunal orders, briefing lawyers and/or relevant attendances in Tribunal or Court proceedings amongst other things. I find the delegation had not been provided. Clearly, if the delegation had been properly given to PSMG, its failure to carry out the instruction of the Owners Corporation would in my view have led to a breach of the rule. Given that the delegation had not been properly made to PSMG, I find that it was not within the scope of the agreement to prepare and lodge the NCAT application.
2. I have also considered whether the email from Mr Wang on 29 August 2022 indicating that the request would be "done next week" amounted to a breach of the agreement. I am of the view that given the strict wording of clause 2 of the SM Agreement, and that the approval under the SM Agreement is required to be approved by the AGM, Mr Wang's email could not import an approved delegation to carry out the additional Schedule B services.
3. I find that PSMG did not have the delegation to progress the claim at NCAT having considered the terms of the strata management agreement. However, Mr Wang's delay in considering the request and providing a reasonable response was delayed and lacking in professionalism. However, I find this does not amount to a contravention of the clause, because PSMG did not have the delegation to prepare the claim as requested.
4. I find the contravention is not proved.

Contravention 11 - Breach Schedule 1, cl 4 and cl 6 of the PSA Reg 2022

1. The Respondent contends that cll 4 and 6 of the PSA Reg 2022 were breached. Clauses 4 and 6 provide:

4 Skill, care and diligence

An agent must exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence.

6 To act in client's best interests

An agent must act in the client's best interests at all times unless to do so is -

(a) contrary to the Act or regulations under the Act, or

(b) otherwise unlawful.

1. The circumstances alleged to amount to the breach are:

(1) The SP 94415 Owners Corporation referred to 12 cancellations in a quarterly cash management report up to 31 January 2023 and the late payment of several invoices.

(2) A Sydney Water invoice dated 12 December 2022 was not paid until 3 February 2023, resulting in a notice of legal action being issued.

(3) A solicitor invoice dated 22 June 2022 was not paid until 9 February 2023.

(4) Invoices from "Able Doors" issued on 15 November and 21 November 2023 remained unpaid as of 21 February 2023.

(5) The CCD in the Owners SP4415 decision was satisfied that the delay in the payment of these invoices constituted unsatisfactory performance of the Agreement.

1. The Respondent contends that without reasonable excuse the applicants may have contravened the rules and committed an offence against s 37(2) of the PSA Act.
2. It is not in contest that the SM Agreement between PSGM and SP94415 was terminated by the Tribunal under s 72(1)(1) of the SSM Act on the ground of unsatisfactory performance of the agreement by PSMG. Some, but not all, of the reasons for the termination included (2)-(4) in [187] above. I set out the relevant evidence and my findings concerning each of the items (1)-(4).

(1) The SP 94415 Owners Corporation referred to 12 cancellations in a quarterly cash management report up to 31 January 2023 and the late payment of several invoices.

1. Mr Wang gave evidence that the cancellation entries in the cash management for the quarter journal reflect the data entry staff member correcting a code entry in the accounting system. His evidence was that a new staff member had commenced with PSMG and the cancellation entry reflected the operator correcting an incorrect coded expense item in the journal. Annexed to Mr Wang's affidavit is a copy of the journal report reflecting that above the cancellation entry is another entry which reflects the correct item description for the receipt issued. Mr Wang said that in his view his staff undertook the correct procedure to reflect a change in the code of the expense to ensure it was correctly reported in the accounts for the strata plan.
2. The cross-examination did not disturb Mr Wang's evidence on this issue. I accept Mr Wang's unchallenged evidence in this regard.
3. I find that there is no breach of cll 4 or 6 of the PSA Reg 2022.

(2) A Sydney Water invoice dated 12 December 2022 was not paid until 3 February 2023, resulting in a notice of legal action being issued.

1. The Sydney Water account in the amount of $5,205.00 was issued to the strata plan, c/o PSMG on 28 November 2022. The due date for payment was 19 December 2022. By 24 January 2023, Sydney Water had not received payment and issued to the strata plan directly a "NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE LEGAL ACTION", with a direction that payment was due immediately. It also appears that Sydney Water imposed a late fee, or extra amount payable, as the amount due to Sydney Water in the 24 January 2023 notice is in the amount of $5,220.19.
2. Mr Wang gave evidence, which is corroborated by a remittance statement that payment was made in the amount of $5,205 on or about 3 February 2023. Mr Wang's evidence included that the invoice was issued on 13 December 2022 and that the payment terms were 30 days. I reject Mr Wang's explanation. That is because, and I find, it is clear on the face of the invoice that the date of issue was 28 November 2022 and payment was due on 19 December 2022. I find PSMG paid $5,205 on or about 3 February 2023. There is no evidence that the additional late fee, or, penalty was paid and by whom. I accept that PSMG may not have been aware of the late fee, as the notice was issued directly to the strata plan and not PSMG. This is because PSMG only aware of the late fee or penalty according to Mr Wang, when the 24 January 2023 notice was received by PSMG on 8 February 2023.
3. Mr Wang's recollection and explanation about why the invoice was not paid on time is unsatisfactory and not reliable. If the invoice was received at the latest seven days after it was issued, namely 5 December 2022, then there is no reason why, even if adopting PSMG's practice of the payment of invoices on the Friday after the invoice was payable (see below), the invoice was not paid on 23 December 2022. Despite PSMG clearly not adopting its own practice, the invoice was not paid until 3 February 2023. It was paid late and the strata plan incurred a late fee.
4. Mr Wang said that payments for invoices at PSMG are made each Friday. It is PSMG's practice to pay an invoice on the first Friday after an invoice is due for payment. He gave evidence that it is not PSMG's practice to pay an invoice before it falls due "because it would affect the strata plan's cash flow and payment at the end of the period gives the strata plan the benefit of any interest". He gave further evidence that some payments falling due over the Christmas period will be paid early. If an invoice falls due in January, it is paid when staff return to work. The obvious inadequacy in Mr Wang's explanation for paying invoices late ignores the fact a late fee and/or penalty may become payable. This is not in the financial interests of the owners of a strata plan. It is also not sound business practice. Invoices should paid 'as and when they fall due'. PSMG's practice to maximise interest while incurring late fees is not acting with due care and skill of a competent strata manager.
5. Mr Wang accepts that there was a delay in paying the invoice and apologises.
6. The single issue of the late payment of one invoice, being the Sydney Water invoice, could be explained as an administrative error. However, the practice of PSMG as a purported professional strata manager in unilaterally deciding to pay invoices late, and after the invoice becomes due and payable, is in my view a practice which is not acting in the best interests of the strata plan and is it not a practice which demonstrates the exercise of due care skill and diligence. This is because the practice can lead to the strata plan incurring late fees and penalties and possible legal action for a breach of contract.
7. I find there is a breach of cll 4 and 6 of the PSA Reg 2022.

(3) A solicitor invoice dated 22 June 2022 was not paid until 9 February 2023.

1. The allegation is that PSMG did not pay an invoice from Kerin Benson Lawyers in the amount of $544.50 dated 22 June 2022, until 9 February 2023.
2. Mr Wang gave evidence that PSMG first became aware of the outstanding invoice on or about 3 February 2023 following the receipt of an email from a member of the Strata Committee Ms Ren. After a short delay to set up the creditor and to verify the creditors credential in the PSMG accounting system, the invoice was paid in full, on or about 9 February 2023. I accept Mr Wang's unchallenged evidence.
3. There is no evidence to establish that PSMG had been made aware of the invoice before 3 February 2023. I find accordingly.
4. I find that there is no breach of cll 4 and 6. This is because PSMG paid the invoice in a timely manner after receiving the 3 February 2023 email from Ms Ren.

(4) Invoices from "Able Doors" issued on 15 November and 21 November 2022 remained unpaid as of 21 February 2023.

1. The notice to show cause refers to unpaid invoices from Able Doors issued on 15 and 21 November 2022. Those invoices are purported to have remained unpaid until 21 February 2023. In the s 58 material at pages 1057-1060 of R2 are two invoices from Able Doors. The first invoice number 55850 dated 21 November 2022 and the second 56123 dated 30 November 2022. Those invoices are annexed to an email from Able Doors to the Strata Plan and PSMG. The email indicates that the two invoices remain outstanding and require payment. The invoices are in the amounts of $275 and $803 respectively. I am unable to locate in the documents the invoice dated 15 November 2022. I was not taken to that evidence in the hearing. I can make no findings in that regard.
2. It would appear from the correspondence from Able Doors to the Strata Plan and PSMG that the invoice number 55850 in the amount of $275 remained outstanding as at 17 February 2023.
3. Mr Wang in his evidence refers to a separate invoice being 55541 dated 9 November 2022 in the amount of $308. He gave evidence that that invoice was paid following approval from the Executive Committee of the Strata Plan on 10 November 2022. It is not clear why he needed approval to pay the invoice. He was not cross-examined on his evidence.
4. Mr Wang does not provide any explanation for the delay in paying the 21 November 2022 invoice.
5. Neither party took me to these invoices nor provided further submissions in relation to these documents at hearing. Based on the evidence before me, it would appear that the invoice of 21 November 2022 had not been paid by 17 February 2023. This is the only finding I can make. Mr Wang has not provided an explanation in relation to this invoice.
6. I am not satisfied there has been a breach of cll 4 and 6 in this regard.
7. I find contravention 11 is proved in relation to (2) and (4).

Contravention 13 - PSMG failed to provide at least three insurance quotes, or a written explanation, in breach of s 166 of the SSM Act, and the quotes were provided only two days before the policy expired.

166 Strata managing agent to obtain insurance quotations

(1) A strata managing agent must provide the owners corporation with not less than 3 quotations from different providers for each type of insurance proposed by the agent to the owners corporation or provide written reasons to the owners corporation if less than 3 quotations are provided.

1. Mr Wang gave the following evidence. He is aware of the obligations pursuant to s 166 of the SSM Act. He had asked an employee, Mr Ben He, Compliance Officer for PSMG, to obtain quotes for the Strata Plan. Three quotes were sought, being a request from 'Flex' on 30 August 2022, 'SCI' on 2 September 2022 and 'CHU' on 5 September 2022. I find, of the three insurance companies, only two provided a quote. Those being, SCI and CHU on 2 and 5 September respectively. Flex did not provide a quote.
2. On 10 September 2022, the two quotes from SCI and CHU were sent to the Strata Committee. This was not in dispute and I find accordingly. Mr He was of the opinion that unless three quotes had been received, he was not to send any quotes to the Strata Committee. This in his view explains the delay in sending the quote so late.
3. On 11 October 2022, Mr He wrote to a Ms Mei-Su, in response to a request about the insurance quotations and providing an explanation as to why only two quotes were provided and not three.
4. The email on 11 October 2022 set out, amongst other things, a delay that had been experienced by PSMG in receiving quotations from insurance companies. Despite PSMG requesting a quote from Flex on 30 August 2022, that had not been received. The email sets out the types of insurance the Strata Plan should consider with respect to its insurance.
5. On 11 October 2022, the representative of the Strata Committee, Adrienne Beattie, gave approval for the Strata Plan to proceed with the SCI quote.
6. It is not in contest that the insurance quotations were provided two days before a decision had to be made about insurance aby the strata committee. Mr Wang accepts that this is not best practice. He sets out that a new company policy has been adopted by PSMG where all quotes are forwarded to the relevant strata committees as soon as they are received and that PSMG now uses an insurance broker to obtain insurance quotations.
7. In relation to the alleged breach of s 166 of the SSM Act, Mr Wang relies upon the correspondence sent by Mr He on 11 October 2022 as being a sufficient written explanation under the Act for not providing the three quotations as required by the section.
8. I accept Mr Wang's evidence. I find that while the email from Mr He could have provided more information, but, it was correspondence in compliance with s 166 of the SSM Act. That provision requires "written reasons to the owners corporation if less than 3 quotations are provided". I find that the email of Mr He met the requirements of that provision, albeit it should have been provided much earlier than when it was.
9. I find the contravention is not proved.

1. In summary, I have found the following contraventions proven:

(1) Contravention 1, against both Applicants;

(2) Contravention 2, against PSMG;

(3) Contravention 11, against both Applicants.

1. Mr Raymond Rez provided a statement dated 6 December 2021 in the Dawes proceedings. Mr Rez was an employee of PSMG in the position of a strata manager from November 2019 to 2 December 2020. He makes the following complaints with respect to alleged professional misconduct of Mr Wang during the term of his employment.
2. First, he had identified and selected certain owners to support Mr Wang and in turn the reappointment of PSMG as a strata manager. Mr Wang provided support by accepting cash on the day of a general meeting to clear levies in arrears to allow the owners to vote. Communicating with clients privately through WeChat messenger software to collude on the outcome of matters affecting the scheme. Misleading clients by providing incorrect advice under the strata management scheme's management advice, crafting general meeting motions that would achieve his desired outcome. This would include Mr Wang routinely calling a motion seeking to terminate PSMG out of order due to technicalities like spelling errors or a lack of explanatory notes; allowing incorrectly completed proxies to be exercised; stacking the committee with owners that supported him; and allowing owners to exercise more than the maximum number of proxies permitted by the Strata Act.
3. Mr Rez also alleges Mr Wang would routinely block owners and committees who sought to remove PSMG as a managing agent through not accepting cash on the day of a general meeting to clear levies in arrears; not providing the strata roll when requested, or forcing owners to attend an appointment at PSMG's offices to collect the strata roll and then not be available; not allowing proxies to be exercised if signed by all named owners, or if the section regarding voting on the appointment of a strata manager on the proxy form was not completed; colluding with other owners to exclude certain other owners from the committee; colluding with certain building managers to solicit support from owners against other owners.
4. Mr Rez's evidence included allegations that Mr Wang routinely ignored aspects of the SSM Act and the PSA Act. This included not calling for election of the strata committee at a general meeting during Covid lockdowns; not providing owners corporations with access to their own records; not carrying out required repairs to justify reduction of strata levies; not including a copy of the agency agreement to owners corporations before approval at a general meeting; not calling strata committee and extraordinary general meetings when instructed to do so by the secretary or the strata committee.
5. Mr Rez was cross-examined. He had been a licensed strata managing agent for approximately 15 years. He agreed he commenced work with PSMG in about 2019. When he commenced employment there were about four strata managers who were employed including himself. Mr Rez said he believed he had about 20 buildings allocated to him to manage. From time to time he would attend and chair meetings for those buildings. When other strata managers were sick he would fill in and attend other buildings outside his portfolio. Mr Wang attended meetings on occasion with Mr Rez. When Mr Wang attended he often acted as an interpreter to assist non-English speaking lot owners.
6. Mr Rez agreed that he as Chair was responsible for running meetings and handling registration of members, to count votes and determine if proxies were valid, including the financial viability of members who were voting.
7. Mr Rez was questioned about hard copies of the strata roll being kept in the office. He said that they were not but rather they were kept digitally. He said he had no knowledge of any new owners details of a property and a lot owner's details being updated by administrative staff printing out hard copies of the document to update the strata roll and place in a folder. Mr Rez gave evidence that he was not aware of strata rolls being kept in folders within the office. Despite it being proposed to Mr Rez that his evidence was false with respect to Mr Wang receiving cash, Mr Rez maintained his view his evidence that it was.
8. Mr Rez agreed that it was up to the chairperson of the meeting to decide how the meeting was run. However, when asked about the alleged malpractice of Mr Wang interfering in the running of meetings as described above, he said that he acted on instruction from his employer even where he observed the meeting not being run in accordance with the regulatory scheme.
9. Mr Rez was cross-examined about his performance at PSMG and his ultimate resignation. It was put to Mr Rez that he did not leave the employment of PSMG because of illegal and unethical practices but because his pay was reduced. Mr Rez said, "I deny that, prove it". Mr Rez agreed that he left PSMG on bad terms. He denies that he prepared the statement in the Dawes proceedings "to get back at Mr Wang". He disagreed and said "No it was because he wanted to bring to light illegal and immoral practices". Mr Rez agreed that he did not go to Fair Trading and make any formal complaint to authorities despite his strong view concerning Mr Wang and PSMG's alleged practices.
10. Mr Rez has made many allegations about Mr Wang acting either illegally or in breach of the regulatory scheme. Despite these serious allegations, many of them were not put directly to Mr Wang. Where they were not, I have not placed any weight on Mr Rez's account and allegations.
11. More broadly, Mr Rez did not impress me as a reliable witness. Mr Rez was at times argumentative and defensive and he appears to have acquiesced in the alleged misconduct of Mr Wang during his employment. Of particular relevance is that Mr Rez did not report Mr Wang's alleged misconduct to authorities, nor the Commissioner. But rather, after his employment ceased with PSMG on bad terms, he made grave and serious allegations in the Dawes proceedings. This reflects poorly on the reliability of Mr Rez's evidence generally. I find him to be an unreliable witness overall. However, I accept Mr Rez gives corroborating evidence about Mr Wang's practice to not include the SM Agreement when required to do so.

Evidence of Michelle Wang, Debanjan Basu and Hongliang Liang

1. Each of the three witnesses referred to above gave evidence and were cross-examined. In short, each witnesses gave evidence that they were either current or former members of strata plans where Mr Wang and PSMG had been retained as the strata manager. Despite a relatively robust cross-examination, I accept each of the witnesses evidence as being reliable. Their evidence supports generally that PSMG, and Mr Wang, as providing a good service.
2. Ms Basu is the Chair of Strata Committee SP56443 and provided a statement on 30 July 2024. The statement sets out that the Strata Plan is "very happy" with the services of PSMG to date and does not foresee an immediate change in the need for strata management. The majority of owners within the Strata Plan support the continuation of PSMG and Mr Wang.
3. Michelle Wang is an owner in the Strata Scheme 74662 and provided a statement on 30 July 2024. Ms Wang supports PSMG as the strata manager of that Plan.
4. Similarly, in a statement of Hongliang Liang, Mr Liang is an owner of a lot in SP56443. PSMG has been a strata manager of the Plan since September 2022 and the Plan is "very satisfied with their services". The Scheme is one of the largest in Australia with nearly 650 lots and has been under compulsory management since 2014. He gave evidence that Mr Wang has effectively reduced conflicts between the majority of owners and a small dissenting group.
5. Each of the witnesses evidence supports Mr Wang and PSMG in providing professional strata management services in respect of their strata plans. This evidence was not challenged and I find accordingly.

1. It is uncontroversial that the purpose of the PSA Act is to not only regulate agents but to also ensure protection of the public. This is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that PSMG has, in the CCD decisions, had adverse findings made against it. The Commissioner's view in these proceedings is that both PSMG and Mr Wang do not possess the requisite degree of competency to hold the relevant licences and that the protection of consumers and the general public requires that those licences be cancelled and both PSMG and Mr Wang be prohibited from practising for a period of time, 10 years.
2. It is the task of this Tribunal to review all of the information and material that was available before the Commissioner in the making of her decisions which are the subject of this review. The Tribunal is also required to make the correct and preferable decision when undertaking a review of the reviewable decisions based upon all of the material available to it at the time in which the hearing takes place. In that regard, there is additional material that Mr Wang and PSMG filed in this review that either was no made available, or, may not, have been available, to the Commissioner at the time when the reviewable decisions were to be made. Mr Wang also, for example, did not challenge Mr Rez's evidence and statement in the Ma matter, however, he did do so in this review. Mr Rez was also subjected to a robust cross-examination be the Applicant's counsel Mr Horowitz. I have taken all of the previous and new material into consideration in the disposition of this review.

Are there grounds for taking disciplinary action against the Applicants?

1. Section 191 of the PSA Act provides the grounds on which disciplinary action can be taken if the Secretary, and hence the Tribunal on review, is satisfied the licensee has contravened a provision of the PSA Act, or any other prescribed matter. This is whether or not the licensee has been prosecuted or convicted of an offence in respect of the alleged contravention. In this matter, the Respondent determined and submits that the Applicants had contravened various provisions of the relevant regulations and PSA Act (as set out above) and should be disciplined. The Respondent also contends that the Applicants are not 'fit and proper' to hold their licences.
2. There is no evidence that PSMG, nor, Mr Wang, have been prosecuted or convicted of an offence in respect of the alleged contraventions. However, I note that on 23 August 2019, the Respondent issued a warning letter to Mr Wang in respect of apparent contraventions by PSMG of ss 32 and 37 of the PSA Act and s 263 of the SSM Act. On 19 September 2022, a penalty infringement notice was issued to PSMG for failure to develop guidelines as required by s 32(4) of the PSA Act.
3. I have decided that there are grounds to take disciplinary action against both Mr Wang and PSMG. I have found contraventions 1 and 11 is proved as against both Applicants and contravention 2 is proved as against PSMG. I therefore find that pursuant to s 191(1)(a) of the PSA Act, disciplinary action can be taken against both Applicants.
4. I have also found that there are grounds to take disciplinary action against Mr Wang as he is not a fit and proper person to be involved in the direction, management or conduct of the business of a licensee pursuant to s 191(1)(e) of the PSA Act.
5. In doing so I have considered:

(1) the gravity of the misconduct;

(2) the deterrent effect of any protective order on the further conduct of the applicants;

(3) the deterrent effect of any protective order on the conduct of other strata management agents; and

(4) the enhancement of confidence in the public in the integrity of strata managers.

1. The Respondent submits that Mr Wang is not a fit and proper person to hold a contract or licence. Equally, she also submits that PSMG is not a fit and proper corporation to hold a licence.
2. In Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321 at 380 [36], Toohey and Gaudron JJ explained the fit and proper person test in the context of a commercial broadcasting licence:

"The expression 'fit and proper person' standing alone carries no precise meaning. It takes its meaning from its context, from the activities in which the person is or will be engaged and the ends to be served by those activities. The context of 'fit and proper' cannot be entirely divorced from the conduct of the person who is or will be engaging in those activities. However, depending on the nature of the activities, the question may be whether the improper conduct has occurred, whether it is likely to occur, whether it can be assumed that it will not occur, or whether the general community will have confidence that it will not occur. The list is not exhaustive but it does indicate that, in certain contexts, character (because it provides indication of likely future conduct) or reputation, (because it provides indication of public perception as to likely future conduct) may be sufficient to ground a finding that a person is not fit and proper to undertake the activities in question."

1. In Hughes & Vale Pty Limited v State of New South Wales [1955] HCA 28; (1955) 93 CLR 127 at 156, fitness and propriety was considered to have three components: honesty, knowledge and ability.
2. It is generally accepted that what is fit and proper needs to be determined by reference to the activities in issue and is to be gauged in light of the nature and purpose of the activities that the person will undertake (AGO v Director-General, Department of Transport [2012] NSWADT 101 at [26]; Austin v Commissioner for Fair Trading & Commissioner of Police [2016] NSWCATAP 179 at [82]).
3. Fitness and propriety is a question of fact to be determined objectively, taking into account all the evidence: Smith v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force & NSW Fair Trading [2014] NSWCATAD 184 at [40].
4. In considering whether or not PSMG and Mr Wang are 'fit and proper persons', or whether it would be contrary to the public interest for the Applicants to continue to hold a licence, with reference to the principles expressed above, I have had regard only to the proven contraventions and to the extent proven in these proceedings, the CCD determinations.

1. I have found that Mr Wang was aware that he was required to, and did not, provide a copy of the SM Agreement prior to the 6 October 2021 AGM motion. I have not accepted Mr Wang tabled at the meeting the SM Agreement for the reasons set out above. Mr Wang was not frank in his evidence in this hearing on this issue. Fitness and propriety requires a degree of honesty, knowledge and ability. Mr Wang, in my view, by saying he did not know he had to provide the SM Agreement "not to the standard required" was self-serving, lacking in candour and disingenuous. This is because he was aware requirement to provide the SM Agreement on and from 28 May 2020. Mr Rez also gave corroborating evidence, which I accept on this issue. I have not made a finding of dishonesty in respect of the contravention, but my finding not to do so was finely balanced.
2. Mr Wang's conduct in respect of contravention 1 is particularly troubling when determining fitness and propriety. This was not a one off incident. Despite Mr Wang saying that his practices in this regard changed after 28 May 2020, they clearly had not. This is most concerning. I have a particular concern of future conduct by Mr Wang, bearing in mind that past conduct, particularly repeated conduct, is a predictor for the future.
3. Where Mr Wang is not the licensee in charge, I have no concern that PSMG will repeat such conduct, that is following the training of all PSMG staff and its directors.

1. I have found the contravention proved against PSMG and not Mr Wang. Calling a meeting says that PSMG was acting as the Strata Manager. However, there was no SM Agreement duly executed and where PSMG had not been appointed. PSMG was not the secretary. However, Mr Wang believed he remained the secretary and validly called the meeting. This does not weigh in the balance with regard to fitness and propriety concerning Mr Wang.
2. Where Mr Wang is not the licensee in charge, I have no concern that PSMG will repeat such conduct, that is following the training of all PSMG staff and its directors.

1. I agree that on the evidence before the Tribunal, this was an isolated incident in the context of contravention 11 as proven. My finding in relation to contravention 11 is not sufficient, in isolation, to determine that Mr Wang is not a fit and proper person. However, when weighed with the culmination of the contraventions, I am satisfied that he is not a fit and proper person to hold the licence.
2. The conduct concerning the proven contravention 11, while it was a poor and inappropriate business practice to adopt, by chance led to only one imposition of late fee or penalty. The conduct is attributable to a one-off event, but the practice itself is more systemic. I note that Mr Wang said he has ceased this practice for the reasons which are set out above.
3. Contravention 1, 2 and 11 go to the very heart of the Applicant's obligations toward the legislative scheme and those obligations are fundamental requirements of the licence in issue.
4. The seriousness of the decisions of the Tribunal in its CCD cannot be downplayed. The Tribunal has made a number of findings against PSMG and Mr Wang's conduct in acting as licenced strata manager. I do not need to set out all of those matters in full. They are referred to above. Mr Wang being the the controlling mind of PSMG has led to a number of occasions where the CCD has taken serious action against PSMG, which include removing it as a strata manager and appointing another manager. Such action is serious and not taken lightly. I have considered this in determining fitness and propriety.
5. Similarly, in the circumstances of all the evidence I have considered in these proceedings, PSMG's conduct in relation to contravention 1, 2 and 11, where Mr Wang is not the controlling mind of PSMG, I am satisfied that PSMG is a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
6. I have taken into consideration the evidence of each of the witnesses giving evidence in support of Mr Wang and PSMG. This evidence has to be contrasted with the evidence given in these proceedings and also the evidence in the CCD proceedings.
7. I have considered Mr Rez's evidence concerning the allegations he makes about Ms Wang and his business practices. Overall, I have found Mr Rez not to be a reliable witness apart from where his evidence corroborates, particularly contravention 1 and 2. Otherwise, I have place little weight on his evidence.
8. I accept that Mr Wang (and PSMG) has put in place various changes within the business to improve his service and to ensure there would be no further contraventions. An example of this is the change in Mr Wang and PSMG's process with respect to retaining an insurance broker and providing insurance quotes to strata committees as and when received. I also accept Mr Wang's evidence that he has restructured his accounting process to ensure invoices are paid as and when they fall due to prevent his failings of the past. Ordinarily this weighs in favour of the public having confidence that Mr Wang is unlikely to engage in the contraventions. However, I have to balance that against Mr Wang's evidence concerning his change in practice concerning contravention 1, which clearly he did not adopt at the 6 October 2021 AGM.
9. While the contraventions are serious, I have found that they do not involve dishonesty, fraud or the like. Dishonesty being as a key component in determining a person is not of fitness and propriety.
10. There is no mandatory revocation for fitness and propriety, and the Tribunal's decision is therefore discretionary, having taken into account a range of considerations which I have done.
11. After balancing all of these matter I find that Mr Wang is not a fit and proper person to be involved in the direction, management or conduct of the business of a licensee as required by s 191(1)(e) of the PSA Act. I find that PSMG is a fit and proper person in terms of the provision.
12. Given my findings, it is appropriate to make orders for the protective orders as set out below.

1. I have decided to set aside the reviewable decisions and make a new decision.
2. The purpose of disciplinary action is not to punish a licence holder, but to protect the public. This is uncontroversial. Any disciplinary action taken against a licence holder should be the least serious outcome that is reasonably necessary to protect the public. In deciding to discipline the Applicants I have taken these factors into consideration.
3. I have also considered that it is a grave step to deprive a person of their living and where appropriate disciplinary action can be taken which does not include cancellation of a licence, and that other disciplinary action should be considered first and foremost. Bearing in mind of course that it is present fitness to practice which is the principal and ultimate issue of public interest.
4. I have decided that to properly achieve the protection of the public, the license held by Mr Wang must be cancelled. Mr Wang is reprimanded and disqualified from being involved in the direction, management or conduct of the business of a licensee for a period of 12 months. I also recommend that Mr Wang undergo appropriate training before he is to reapply for a licence after the disqualification period.
5. I have decided to reprimand and fine PSMG. Where a new and competent licensee is appointed, I see no requirement to impose any further disciplinary action against PSMG itself.
6. I have allowed 28 days before the cancellation of Mr Wang's licence takes effect. This is to allow an orderly transition of the business to a new licensee without prejudicing the many strata lots currently under management by PSMG. It follows that the disqualification period is to also commence from the date upon which the cancellation takes effect.

(2) Pursuant to s 192(1)(a) of the Property and Stock Agents Act 2002, Mr Whitney Wang is reprimanded.

(3) Pursuant to s 192(1)(g) of the Property and Stock Agents Act 2002, Mr Whitney Wang's licence is cancelled after 28 days from the date of this order.

(4) Pursuant to s 192(1)(i) of the Property and Stock Agent Act 2002, Mr Whitney Wang is disqualified from being involved in the direction, management or conduct of the business of a licensee under the Property and Stock Agents Act 2002, for a period of 12 months commencing 28 days from the date of this order.

(5) Pursuant to s 192(1)(a) of the Property and Stock Agents Act 2002, PSMG Pty Ltd is reprimanded.

(6) Pursuant to s 192(1)(d) of the Property and Stock Agents Act 2002, PSMG Pty Ltd is fined $15,000, payable within 28 days from the date of this order.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

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.