Express Vehicles Compliance Pty Ltd and Secretary, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts

This matter came before Mr Rob Reitano, Member, of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal concerning an application for a stay of decisions made by the Secretary, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts. The applicant, Express Vehicles Compliance Pty Ltd, sought to stay the suspension of its Model Reports, which were approvals for vehicles to be entered onto the Register of Approved Vehicles. The dispute arose because the Secretary had suspended these approvals, as he was no longer satisfied that the vehicles complied with Australian Design Rule (ADR) 85/100, a standard concerned with collision safety.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to grant a stay of the Secretary's decision to suspend the approval of the Model Reports. In determining this, the Tribunal was required to consider established principles, including the applicant's prospects of success on a final hearing, the consequences of refusing or granting a stay for both the applicant and the respondent, the public interest, and whether refusing a stay would render any final relief nugatory. The court also considered the relevance of consultation and the potential for alternative regulatory avenues for approval.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's prospects of success were not good. The basis for the initial approval of the Model Reports relied on the assumption that compliance with Japanese adoption dates for United Nations Regulation 135-01 (UNR 135-01) equated to compliance with ADR 85/100. However, the Secretary became aware that the Japanese adoption of UNR 135-01 had an applicability date of 20 January 2023, meaning vehicles designed before this date might not have complied. The applicant's submission that it was "not yet fully clear" whether the vehicles conformed with the relevant regulations, or if other regulatory avenues existed, indicated a lack of a clear basis for approval. While the applicant would suffer financial and reputational loss if a stay was not granted, the Tribunal concluded that the public interest, particularly concerning road safety, weighed heavily against granting a stay.