NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Ceepee Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services [2014] NSWCATAD 74 Hearing dates: 8, 9 August 2013 Decision date: 05 May 2014 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: S Montgomery, Senior Member Decision: 1. The decision under review is set aside.
2. The decision is made that the operator's accreditation held by the Applicant is suspended until such time as the Applicant is able to satisfy the Respondent that it is able to ensure compliance with all relevant legislative requirements.
3. This decision is to take effect 28 days from the date of these reasons.
Catchwords: Hire car - operator's accreditation - cancellation - fit and proper - designated manager - suspension of accreditation Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Passenger Transport Act 1990Cases Cited: Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321; 94 ALR 11; 64 ALJR 462; 21 ALD 1.
Department of Transport and Infrastructure v Murray (GD) [2011] NSWADTAP 16
Hughes and Vale v State of New South Wales (No 2) [1955] HCA 28; (1955) 93 CLR 127
McDonald v Director-General of Social Security [1984] FCA 57; (1984) 1 FCR 354Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ceepee Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)Representation: Counsel
J Doyle (Applicant)
K Eastman (Respondent)
Searson Shannon & Co Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Smythe Wozniak Legal (Respondent)
File Number(s): 133174
reasons for decision
This matter was commenced in the General Division of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal ("the ADT") pursuant to the Administrative Decision Tribunal Act 1997 ("the ADT Act"). On 1 January 2014, the ADT was abolished and its functions were taken over by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales ('NCAT'). The present decision is therefore a decision of NCAT. However, because the proceedings to which it relates are 'part heard proceedings' as defined in clause 6(1) of Schedule 1 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, they are to be determined as if that Act had not been enacted (see clause 7(3)(b) of this Schedule).
The Applicant has applied to the Tribunal for review of a decision of a delegate of the Respondent to cancel the operator's accreditation held by the Applicant under the Passenger Transport Act 1990 ("the Act"). The accreditation permits the Applicant to operate a private hire vehicle business ("the business") within the Port Macquarie local government area.
The Applicant's directors and shareholders are Peter Cristoforo and Christie Cristoforo ("the directors"). The Applicant acquired the business from Bretabac Pty Ltd ("Bretabac") - a company controlled by Ms Cristoforo's parents, Mr Peter Williamson and Ms Cheryl Williamson. At all relevant times Ms Cristoforo's parents were directors of Bretabac. Ms Cristoforo served as a director of Bretabac from 2000 to 2008. In separate proceedings before the Tribunal, Bretabac had agreed to the cancellation of its Port Macquarie licences from February 2013 and consequently it…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Ceepee Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2014] NSWCATAD 74
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues were whether the respondent had acted lawfully and reasonably in suspending the applicant's accreditation and whether the applicant had been denied procedural fairness. The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and the evidence presented to determine if the respondent had a valid basis for its decision and if the applicant's rights to procedural fairness were respected.
The court found that the respondent had acted within its statutory powers in suspending the applicant's accreditation due to the suspension of the designated manager. The court also held that the respondent had not breached any principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity for the applicant to be heard before making its decision. The court was satisfied that the respondent's decision was based on sufficient evidence and was therefore lawful and reasonable.
The court set aside the original decision and suspended the applicant's accreditation until it was satisfied that the applicant could comply with all relevant legislative requirements. This decision was to take effect 28 days from the date of the reasons.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The decision under review is set aside.
2. The decision is made that the operator's accreditation held by the Applicant is suspended until such time as the Applicant is able to satisfy the Respondent that it is able to ensure compliance with all relevant legislative requirements.
3. This decision is to take effect 28 days from the date of these reasons.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.