Key Takeaways
- The phrase appears in the MVDA (s. 6(1)(a)(ii), (d)(iii)) and the child care Act (s. 23(1)(b), (2)(b)).
- It asks about future conduct, judged by past conduct.
- Dishonesty with the regulator itself weighs heavily.
- Evidence of insight and change is central.
Where It Appears
Under the MVDA, past conduct that affords reasonable grounds for belief that a person will not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty disentitles them to registration (s. 6(1)(a)(ii)). The child care Act applies a similar test to applicants and licensees, and to their officers, directors, employees and controlling persons (CCEYA, s. 23(1)(b), (2)(b)).
What Evidence Matters
- Patterns, not isolated incidents.
- How you dealt with the regulator, including disclosure and co-operation.
- Restitution and remediation.
- Independent references and compliance systems.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a single mistake enough?
It can be if serious, but the test focuses on reasonable grounds for concern about future conduct.
Does honesty with the regulator matter?
Very much. False statements are a separate ground for refusal under the MVDA (s. 6(1)(a)(iii)).
Sources
Statutory references are to the provisions listed below, as consolidated on e-Laws when this page was prepared.
- Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, s. 6 — Checked November 10, 2026.
- Child Care and Early Years Act, 2014, s. 23 — Checked November 10, 2026.