Suzi Milgate: Darwin realtor’s bid to win back real estate licence shot down by tribunal

Controversial Darwin realtor Suzi Milgate has failed in her bid to win back her licences, with a tribunal finding it had no power to make the orders sought by her because she still had more than $18,000 in fines outstanding.

Suzi Milgate faces the Darwin Local Court after the alleged attack on Chief Minister Natasha Fyles at Nightcliff markets. Picture: Pema Tamang Pakhrin

Under-fire real estate agent Suzi Milgate, who remains before the courts for allegedly smooshing a cream crepe into the face of then Chief Minister Natasha Fyles, has lost her bid to win back her licence, with a tribunal castigating her for her “vague” and “dubious” case.

Ms Milgate and her agency, Milgate Real Estate, were stripped of their licences by the Agents Licensing Board of the Northern Territory on January 23 after the board found she harassed two tenants.

She and her company separately racked up about $18,000 worth of fines, for conduct including inappropriately turfing a tenant who maintained an OnlyFans account to make sexual content for cash.

Her licences subsequently expired and the board barred her from reapplying, leading to her bid before the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal to force the board to welcome her back into the fold.

She submitted she would be happy to do any training or education programs the board saw fit to reassure itself of her competency, but also sought compensation for lost income.

Suzi Milgate at the front of Darwin Local Court. Picture: Pema Tamang Pakhrin

However, in a recent decision, tribunal member Mark O’Reilly affirmed the board’s decision.

Mr O’Reilly described Ms Milgate’s bid as quixotic and “misconceived” as she was “not eligible” for a licence, as she and her company had yet to pay the fines at the time of his decision.

This failure fell afoul of s20(2)(b) of the Agents Licensing Act 1979, which holds a person cannot be considered a “fit and proper” person if they have outstanding fines under the Act.

Ms Milgate argued it would be “harsh and disproportionate” to disqualify her just because she hadn’t paid her fines, but Mr O’Reilly demurred.

“The tribunal cannot make the orders Ms Milgate is seeking,” he said.

Mr O’Reilly said, aside from the above fact, the tribunal had given five separate directions seeking the filing of evidence and submissions, but the real estate agent had been “unable to comply with those orders on a number of occasions”.

Tribunal member Mark O’Reilly has dismissed Suzi Milgate’s applications. Picture: Pema Tamang Pakhrin

Ms Milgate had a habit of “providing numerous documents and emails to the tribunal... the relevance [of which] was not immediately apparent... in a piecemeal fashion without identifying them” and the case was further complicated by extension requests “based on vague assertions of medical unfitness” and a “dubious” bid to summons evidence.

Mr O’Reilly said there was a simple way Ms Milgate could progress the matter despite his dismissal of proceedings.

“It is open to Ms Milgate to pay the outstanding fines and reapply for her licence and for a licence on behalf of the company,” he said.

“If she is further rejected she can apply to the tribunal for a review of any decision.”

At her most recent appearance before the Darwin Local Court in November, regarding the alleged assault on Ms Fyles, Ms Milgate successfully argued for a three-month adjournment in order to obtain a forensic psychiatrist’s report amid claims of her declining mental health.

Ms Milgate has pleaded not guilty to the charge of aggravated assault.