AVS Group Australia Pty Limited and Tony Sleiman v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent's Application)

In the case of AVS Group Australia Pty Limited and Tony Sleiman v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force, the applicants challenged the dismissal of their appeal to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1997. The applicants sought to appeal a decision by the Commissioner of Police to cancel their firearms licence. The Commissioner of Police filed an application to have the appeal dismissed on the basis that it was not competent. The application was heard in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants' appeal related to a live controversy. The Commissioner argued that the applicants' appeal was not competent because the firearms licence had expired, and thus there was no ongoing legal issue to be reviewed. The applicants contended that the appeal was still relevant because it concerned the validity of the decision-making process and the potential implications for their rights. The Tribunal needed to determine if the applicants' appeal was competent and whether it related to a live controversy.

The Tribunal considered the relevant statutory provisions and judicial precedents concerning the competency of appeals. The Tribunal concluded that the applicants' appeal did indeed relate to a live controversy. The appeal was not solely about the current status of the firearms licence but was about the process by which the decision was made and the potential impact on the applicants' rights. The Tribunal found that the appeal was competent because it concerned the legality of the decision-making process. Therefore, the application to dismiss the appeal was refused.

In summary, the Tribunal dismissed the Commissioner's application to dismiss the appeal as lacking competence. The Tribunal ordered that the Registrar was to set a date and time for further directions to be made by the President or, if unavailable, another presidential member. This decision ensures that the applicants' appeal can proceed to address the legal issues concerning the decision-making process and its impact on their rights.