Assadourian v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (Northern Region)

The case involved Assadourian, who was contesting a decision made by the Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (Northern Region). The dispute centred around a question of law and the procedure for referring such questions within the context of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT). The matter was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether a question of law could be referred to a single judge of the ADT with the consent of the parties, particularly when the decision in question was initially made by a panel.

The court needed to determine whether a question of law could be remitted to a single judge for consideration, and if so, whether the consent of the parties was sufficient to facilitate such a remitter. The court also had to examine the nature of the question in dispute to ascertain if it was indeed a question of law or if it involved factual considerations. Specifically, the court was required to decide if the question was a matter of fact or a conclusion of law, as this distinction would affect the remitter process.

The court found that the question at issue was a conclusion of fact rather than a question of law. This conclusion was pivotal because it meant that the question could not be remitted to a single judge for determination. The court held that while a question of law could be remitted with the consent of the parties, a conclusion of fact did not fall within the remitter process. Therefore, the court could not remit the matter to a single judge based on the consent of the parties. The decision underscored the importance of distinguishing between questions of law and factual conclusions in the remitter process.

The final orders of the court were that the purported reference of the question of law was not valid as the question was a conclusion of fact and not a question of law. The court emphasised that the distinction between questions of law and factual conclusions was essential for the proper functioning of the remitter process within the ADT.