Gray v Chief Executive, Department of Transport & Main Roads

[2010] QCAT 68

CITATION: Gray v Chief Executive, Department of Transport & Main Roads [2010] QCAT 68

PARTIES:   George Thomas GRAY

V

Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads

APPLICATION NUMBER:            GAR074-10

MATTER TYPE:   General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:   22 March 2010

HEARD AT:   Brisbane

DECISION OF:   C Endicott, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON:   22 March 2010

DELIVERED AT:   Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:   Stay application dismissed

CATCHWORDS: Application for stay – section 22 of Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 - enabling Act does not permit stay of decision under review

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

The hearing took place on the papers in the absence of parties.

REASONS FOR DECISION

HISTORY OF THE APPLICATION

1. An application was made to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal on 11 March 2010 by George Gray (the applicant) seeking a review of a decision of the Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads (the respondent) made on 1 March 2010 to suspend Mr Gray’s driver’s licence. The applicant also sought a stay of the decision under review. 

ISSUES AND THE LEGISLATION

1. Section 22 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 provides that the Tribunal can make an order to stay a decision if it considers it desirable to do so.  Section 6(4) of that Act provides that an enabling Act conferring review jurisdiction on the Tribunal may state the Tribunal’s functions in the jurisdiction, which may add to, otherwise vary, or exclude functions stated in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.  

2. Section 131(1BB) of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 provides that the Tribunal cannot make an order staying the operation of a decision suspending or cancelling a licence if the reason for the suspension or cancellation is the licence holder’s mental or physical incapacity.     

SUBMISSIONS

4. The applicant made written submissions in support of his application to stay the operation of the decision made by the respondent to suspend his driver’s licence.  Those submissions did not challenge the proposition that the basis for the decision under review related to the applicant’s mental or physical incapacity.  
5. The respondent made written submissions on the issue of a stay order. The respondent opposes the making of a stay order. The respondent submitted that there is no power in the Tribunal to make an order to stay the operation of the decision under review by virtue of the provisions of section 131 (1BB) of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995.

CONCLUSION

6. The Tribunal is satisfied that the reason for the decision under review to suspend the applicant’s driver’s licence was related to the applicant’s mental or physical incapacity. As such, the Tribunal accepts the submissions made by the respondent that there is no power to permit the Tribunal to stay the operation of that decision by virtue of section 131(1BB) of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995.   
7. The application for a stay of the decision of the respondent made on 1 March 2010 is dismissed.