Adam Saliba v Wissam Aziz

Adam Saliba (the appellant) appealed against a decision of the Local Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the appropriate penalty for an offence under section 117(1) of the *Road Transport Act 2013* (NSW) (the Act). The appellant had been convicted of this offence, which carried a penalty of a fine. However, the appellant argued that a later amendment to the Act, specifically Schedule 2, clause 10, had impliedly repealed the penalty provision for this offence, meaning no penalty could be imposed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the amendment to the Act, which introduced a new penalty regime for certain offences, had the effect of impliedly repealing the penalty provision for the offence under section 117(1). The court was required to determine if the later legislative provision, which did not specify a penalty for this particular offence, superseded the penalty prescribed in the earlier section.

The court applied the principles of statutory interpretation concerning implied repeal, referencing the decision in *Hoffman v Chief of Army* (2004) 137 FCR 520. It held that for an implied repeal to occur, the later statute must be so inconsistent with the earlier statute that they cannot both stand. In this instance, the court found that the amendment did not create such an inconsistency. The court reasoned that the amendment did not expressly repeal section 117(1) and that the absence of a specific penalty in the amendment for the offence under section 117(1) did not automatically extinguish the penalty provided in that section. The court concluded that the penalty provision in section 117(1) remained operative.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.