Director General, Department of Transport v Z (No.2) (GD)

The case before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) involved the Director General of the Department of Transport and a person identified as Z. Z appealed against the Director General's decision to cancel their authority to operate a commercial passenger vehicle. The cancellation was based on Z's alleged involvement in illegal activities, including drug trafficking, which the Director General deemed to be a breach of the Passenger Transport Act. Z argued that the decision was flawed because the Director General had not provided an opportunity for Z to be heard before making the decision. The AAT was required to determine whether the Director General's decision was lawful and whether Z had been given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against them.

The key legal issues before the AAT were whether the Director General had followed the correct procedure when cancelling Z's authority, and whether Z had been given a fair opportunity to be heard. The AAT considered whether the Director General had taken into account irrelevant considerations or failed to take into account relevant considerations when making the decision. Z argued that the Director General had not provided an opportunity for Z to be heard before making the decision, and that this was a breach of natural justice. The AAT also considered whether the Director General had acted within their powers under the Passenger Transport Act.

The AAT found that the Director General had not provided Z with an opportunity to be heard before making the decision to cancel their authority. The AAT found that this was a breach of natural justice and that the decision was therefore unlawful. The AAT also found that the Director General had taken into account irrelevant considerations when making the decision, namely Z's alleged involvement in illegal activities. The AAT found that these activities were not relevant to Z's fitness to hold a commercial passenger vehicle authority. The AAT set aside the decision of the Director General and affirmed the determination of the Director General. The AAT found that the Director General had the power to cancel Z's authority under the Passenger Transport Act, but that the decision was flawed because it was based on irrelevant considerations and did not provide Z with an opportunity to be heard.