Ceepee Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services

Link copied
Case Copied 42 min read

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 1990
Cases 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 354
Category: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

  1. 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).

  1. 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.

  1. 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…

CaseChat AU logo

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
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
[2014] NSWCATAD 74
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ceepee Pty Ltd sought judicial review of a decision by Roads and Maritime Services to suspend its accreditation as a hire car operator. The dispute arose when the applicant's designated manager was suspended by the respondent, leading to the suspension of the applicant's accreditation. The applicant argued that the respondent's decision was unreasonable and that it had not been given an opportunity to be heard.

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.