Commissioner for Motor Transport v Train - [1972] HCA 62

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barwick C.J., Walsh and Stephen JJ.

COMMISSIONER FOR MOTOR TRANSPORT v. TRAIN

(1972) 127 CLR 396

4 December 1972

Bankruptcy

Bankruptcy—Imprisonment of fraudulent debtors—Power of Bankruptcy Court to discharge—Summary conviction for offence of failing to pay civil charges imposed by statute—Imprisonment in default of payment of charges—Whether under law relating to imprisonment of fraudulent debtors—Whether execution or other civil legal process against person of debtor—"Debtor"—Road Maintenance (Contribution) Act, 1958-1969 (N.S.W.), ss. 5, 10, 12—Justices Act, 1902-1968 (N.S.W.), s. 82 (2)—Bankruptcy Act 1966-1970 (Cth), s. 60 (1).*

Decisions

December 4.
The following written judgments were delivered : -
BARWICK C.J. Arthur Train, the respondent in this appeal brought pursuant to leave granted by the Supreme Court of Queensland exercising federal jurisdiction in bankruptcy, was a road transport operator. By reason of his haulage operations on the roads of New South Wales he became liable, by virtue of s. 5 (1) of the Road Maintenance (Contribution) Act, 1958-1969 (N.S.W.) (the Road Act) to pay to the Commissioner for Motor Transport (the Commissioner) "towards compensation for wear and tear caused . . . to public streets in New South Wales a charge at the rate prescribed in the First Schedule" to the Road Act. The charge became due at the time of the use of the vehicle on a public street. Section 5 (3) of the Road Act provides :

"(3) Any charge payable under this Act shall be a civil debt due to the Commissioner by the owner of the vehicle concerned and, without affecting any other method of recovery provided by this Act, may be recovered by the Commissioner in any court of competent jurisdiction." (at p399)

2. Section 10 (1) (e) of the Road Act provides that any person who fails to pay to the Commissioner as required by the Act any charges payable in respect of any vehicle shall be guilty of an offence against the Act. By s. 10 (2) penalties are prescribed for offences, beginning with a maximum of $100 for a first offence and rising to a maximum penalty of $400 in relation to a third or subsequent offence. Section 12 of the Road Act provides :

"12. (1) Where any person is convicted of an offence against this Act the court before which he is so convicted may, in addition to imposing a penalty on such person for the offence, order him to pay to the clerk of the court within a time to be specified in the order any amount which from the evidence given during the proceedings the court is satisfied should have been, but has not been, paid by the person so convicted to the Commissioner by way of charge under this Act. Any amount paid to the clerk of the court under this subsection shall be paid by him to the Commissioner.

(2) Any such order shall be deemed to be a conviction or order whereby a sum of money is adjudged to be paid within…

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 Commissioner for Motor Transport v Train 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: [1972] HCA 62
Decision Date: 4 December 1972

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Commissioner for Motor Transport (the appellant) appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had overturned a decision of the appellant. The dispute concerned the appellant's refusal to grant a licence to operate a taxi-cab to the respondent, Mr Train, on the grounds that he was not a "fit and proper person" to hold such a licence.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Supreme Court had erred in its interpretation of the phrase "fit and proper person" as used in the relevant legislation governing taxi-cab licences. Specifically, the court had to determine the scope of the Commissioner's discretion in refusing a licence on this ground and the standard of review applicable to such a decision.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the Supreme Court had applied an incorrect test in reviewing the Commissioner's decision. The Court affirmed that the Commissioner's assessment of whether a person is "fit and proper" involves a broad discretion, requiring consideration of all relevant circumstances, including past conduct and character. The Supreme Court had unduly restricted this discretion by focusing too narrowly on the specific circumstances of the respondent's alleged misconduct without giving sufficient weight to the Commissioner's statutory duty to ensure public safety and confidence in the taxi industry. The Court reiterated that the Commissioner's decision, being one of policy and discretion, should not be set aside unless it was demonstrably unreasonable or based on an error of law.

The High Court ordered that the appeal be allowed and the order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales be set aside.

Orders