Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads v Jake Bragg

In the matter of Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads v Jake Bragg, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia addressed the appeal against a decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) regarding the refusal to grant an interlock exemption to Corporal Jake Bragg, a member of the Australian Defence Force. The exemption in question, as outlined in section 63K(2) of the Regulations, pertains to situations where it is not physically possible to fit a prescribed interlock to the only motor vehicle reasonably available to be driven by the applicant. Corporal Bragg argued that because he was required to drive various vehicles in the course of his duties, the exemption should apply to him.

The legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the term 'employment' in section 63K(7) of the Regulations. The court had to determine whether Corporal Bragg's employment as a member of the Australian Defence Force qualified him for the interlock exemption. The court examined the nature of Corporal Bragg’s employment and whether it met the criteria of having only one vehicle reasonably available for use. Given that Corporal Bragg drives multiple vehicles as part of his role, the court concluded that the exemption was not applicable to him.

The court found that the exemption does not extend to situations where an applicant is required to use multiple vehicles, as it was not physically possible to fit an interlock to only one vehicle. The court reasoned that the term 'employment' must be interpreted in the context of having a single vehicle reasonably available for use, which was not the case for Corporal Bragg. Consequently, the court held that the exemption did not apply, and the decision of QCAT was set aside. The appeal by the Chief Executive was allowed, and a decision was substituted confirming the refusal to grant the interlock exemption to Corporal Bragg.