Crossman v Department of Transport and Main Roads

The case of Crossman v Department of Transport and Main Roads involves a challenge by the applicant, Mr Crossman, against the installation of a school zone by the Department of Transport and Main Roads, the first respondent. Mr Crossman argues that the school zone was illegitimately installed due to an alleged failure to comply with certain guidelines he found on the internet. The applicant sought relief in the form of a declaration from the Supreme Court that the school zone was not lawfully installed and sought to challenge the validity of the school zone speed limit. The court was required to determine whether the applicant had identified a legal controversy warranting determination and whether the applicant could demonstrate a breach of the lawful process for the installation of the school zone.

The court examined the nature of the guidelines cited by Mr Crossman and found that they were supplementary to the requirements set out in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and did not have the force of law unless they were contained in an approved notice. The court found that there was no evidence that the guidelines had been included in an approved notice, and therefore, there was no evidence that the lawful process for the installation of the school zone speed limit had been breached. Mr Crossman, an experienced litigant, was aware of the threshold issue but failed to provide evidence to address the problem. The court found that Mr Crossman was essentially agitating a policy disagreement rather than a legal controversy.

In light of the above, the court dismissed the application and ordered that the matter be heard as to costs. The court found that Mr Crossman had not identified a legal controversy warranting determination and had failed to demonstrate a breach of the lawful process for the installation of the school zone. The applicant’s application was dismissed with costs to be heard.