Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Edway Training Pty Ltd v SafeWork NSW [2021] NSWCATAD 152 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 3 June 2021 Decision date: 03 June 2021 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: P H Molony, Senior Member Decision: 1. Pursuant to s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the Tribunal dispenses with a hearing in this matter.
2. The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Civil and Administrative Tribunal – administrative review jurisdiction – no jurisdiction to administratively review a decision by Safework NSW to refuse to enter into a contract with a Registered Training Organisation to do General Construction Induction Training in NSW
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Work Health and Safety Act 2011
Work Health and Safety Regulation 2017
Cases Cited: Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Edway Training Pty Ltd (Applicant)
SafeWork NSW (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
A Soriano (Agent) (Applicant)
S. Hedger (Legal Officer) (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2021/00029653 Publication restriction: Nil
reasons for decision
Introduction.
-
On 26 August 2020 Edway Training Services Proprietary Limited (Edway) applied to SafeWork NSW to enter an agreement to conduct General Construction Induction Training (GTI) as a registered training organisation (RTO). That application was refused in writing on 8 December 2020. The notice of refusal advised Edway that it could seek an internal review of that decision. This it did, in writing, on 16 December 2020.
-
On 13 January 2021, an internal review decision advised that the decision to refuse to enter an agreement with Edway to conduct GIT was affirmed, with SafeWork NSW relying on its right to refuse to accept an application from an RTO to deliver GIT, under the RTO conditions for delivering GIT in New South Wales. The decision advised that Edway could seek external review in the Tribunal within 28 days.
-
On 2 February 2021 Edway filed an administrative review application with the Tribunal with respect to that decision.
-
From the commencement of the proceedings SafeWork NSW has argued, despite its earlier advice to the contrary, that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review a decision by SafeWork NSW to refuse to enter an agreement to conduct GIT with Edway.
-
At a directions hearing held on 2 March 2021 the Tribunal ordered that the parties file submissions relating to the jurisdictional issue and noted that:
The parties agree that hearing can be dispensed with under section 50 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 and the jurisdictional issue is to be determined on the papers after 6 April 2021.
-
That timetable was later extended to 13 April 2021 by consent.
-
The jurisdictional issue has now been referred to me to determine without a hearing.
Material before the Tribunal.
-
In determining this matter, I have had regard to the following materials provided…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Edway Training Pty Ltd v SafeWork NSW 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] NSWCATAD 152
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to review SafeWork NSW’s decision. The applicant argued that the decision was subject to judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1991, and that the Tribunal had the authority to review such decisions. SafeWork NSW contended that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction was limited to specific statutory grounds and that the decision did not fall within those grounds.
The Tribunal considered the scope of its jurisdiction under the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. It found that the decision in question was not a decision that could be reviewed under the Act, as it was not a decision of an administrative character or a decision made in the exercise of a public function. The Tribunal also noted that the decision was not subject to the grounds of review provided for in the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1991. As a result, the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to review the decision. Consequently, the application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Pursuant to s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the Tribunal dispenses with a hearing in this matter.
2. The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
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.