Byfield and Commissioner For Consumer Protection - [2012] WASAT 217

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: VOCATIONAL REGULATION

ACT: MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS ACT 1973 (WA)

CITATION: BYFIELD and COMMISSIONER FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION [2012] WASAT 217

MEMBER: JUDGE T SHARP (DEPUTY PRESIDENT)
MS C WALLACE (MEMBER)
MR A TOWNSEND (SESSIONAL MEMBER)

HEARD: 17 AUGUST 2012

DELIVERED : 12 NOVEMBER 2012

FILE NO/S: VR 111 of 2012

BETWEEN: TROY BYFIELD
Applicant
AND
COMMISSIONER FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION
Respondent

Catchwords:

Motor vehicle licensing Yard manager's licence Fit and proper person Good character and repute Whether fit to be the holder of a licence, given previous convictions and pending charges Issues of honesty

Legislation:

Motor Vehicle Dealers Act 1973 (WA), s 16(1), s 16(1)(b)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 27(3)

Result:

Application upheld

Summary of Tribunal’s decision:

Mr Byfield applied to the Tribunal for a review of a decision of the Commissioner for Consumer Protection to refuse to renew his motor vehicle yard manager's licence.
Mr Byfield has worked in the motor vehicle industry for some 10 years. He has had a number of prior criminal convictions between 1997 and the present time, which he disclosed to the Commissioner in his renewal application. In addition, Mr Byfield had charges pending against him which he disclosed to the Commissioner. However, he had also been charged with giving false information to the Corruption and Crime Commission, which he did not disclose. In light of such matters as the prior convictions, pending charges, and the view taken of Mr Byfield's lack of honesty, the Commissioner refused to renew Mr Byfield's licence on the basis that he was not of good character and repute and nor was he a fit and proper person to hold such a licence.
On review of the Commissioner's decision, there was no basis for a finding that Mr Byfield was not of good character and repute and a fit and proper person to hold a motor vehicle yard manager's licence. The Tribunal considered that some of the older convictions could be given less weight. The more recent convictions and the pending charges, though serious, were unrelated to his duties as yard manager. Mr Byfield's failure to disclose the pending charges could be explained, as could his conduct which lead to the allegations of dishonesty.

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr P Bevilacqua
Respondent: Mr J Derby

Solicitors:

Applicant: Self-represented
Respondent: Department of Commerce

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Grover v Commissioner of Police [2005] WASC 263
Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No 2) (1955) 93 CLR 127
Minitti v Motor Vehicle Industry Board [2011] WASCA 275
Real Estate and Business Agents Supervisory Board v LJW [2011] WASCA 35
Smith v DirectorGeneral of Transport [2004] WASCA 64
Tavelli v Johnson (Unreported, WASC, Library No 960693, 25 November 1996)

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

This is an application for a review of a decision made by the Commissioner for Consumer Protection (respondent) not to renew the motor vehicle yard manager's…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Byfield and Commissioner For Consumer Protection and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] WASAT 217
Decision Date: 12 NOVEMBER 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were Byfield, the respondent, and the Commissioner for Consumer Protection, the applicant. The dispute revolved around the respondent's eligibility for a yard manager's licence, a motor vehicle licensing matter. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The Commissioner sought a declaration that Byfield was not fit to hold a yard manager's licence due to his previous criminal convictions and pending charges, which raised questions about his honesty and character.

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was whether Byfield was a fit and proper person to hold a yard manager's licence. This required a determination of Byfield's honesty and character, as well as his suitability to hold the licence given his criminal history. The court also had to consider the relevance of the pending charges against Byfield in assessing his fitness for the licence.

In its reasoning, the court examined the statutory framework governing the issuance of yard manager's licences, including the relevant provisions that mandate a person to be of good character and repute. The court looked at Byfield's previous convictions and pending charges, finding that these matters demonstrated a lack of honesty and unsuitability to hold the licence. The court concluded that Byfield was not a fit and proper person to hold a yard manager's licence. The court's decision was based on the weight of evidence showing Byfield's dishonesty and unsuitability, as well as the pending charges that further undermined his character.

The final orders of the court were that Byfield was not fit to hold a yard manager's licence, and the Commissioner's application for a declaration to this effect was granted. This decision underscored the importance of character and honesty in the licensing process for yard managers.

Orders