HEWITT -v- FEINAS [2005] WASCA 3

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2005] WASCA 3
Case No:	SJA:1041/2004	Heard:	26 OCTOBER 2004
Coram:	ROBERTS-SMITH J	Delivered:	14/01/05
No of pages:	20	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	SHANE LEE JOHN HEWITT MICHAEL JOHN FEINAS
Catchwords:	Appeal Bylaws and Regulations Breach of condition of taxi licence Imposition of condition by Director General of Department Whether statutory power to impose conditions constrained or restricted by lack of regulations prescribing categories of taxi in respect of which they might be imposed Whether condition valid Statutes Interpretation Imposition of conditions on taxi plates Whether have to be imposed in respect of specific taxi plates or may be imposed in respect of types or categories of taxi plates generally Statutes Interpretation Imposition of conditions relating to "vehicle standards" Whether condition requiring taxi sign be covered or removed when taxi not operating one "in relation to" vehicle standards Whether condition valid under alternative source of power
Legislation:	Taxi Act 1994 (WA), s 20, s 40 Taxi Regulations 1995 (WA), regs 3, 5, 5A, 5B, 6, 19
Case References:	Bermingham v Corrective Services Commission of New South Wales (1988) 15 NSWLR 292 Brown v West (1990) 169 CLR 195 Koh, unreported, PE40274/03; 2 February 2004 Newcastle City Council v GIO General Ltd (1997) 191 CLR 85 O'Grady v Northern Queensland Co Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 356 Re JJT; Ex parte Victoria Legal Aid (1998) 195 CLR 184 Thompson v Goold & Co [1910] AC 409 Workers Compensation Board of Qld v Technical Products Pty Ltd (1988) 165 CLR 642 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : HEWITT -v- FEINAS [2005] WASCA 3 CORAM : ROBERTS-SMITH J HEARD : 26 OCTOBER 2004 DELIVERED : 14 JANUARY 2005 FILE NO/S : SJA 1041 of 2004 BETWEEN : SHANE LEE JOHN HEWITT

Appellant

AND

MICHAEL JOHN FEINAS

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS

Coram : MR M WHEELER SM

File No : FR 1469 of 2004

Catchwords:

Appeal - Bylaws and Regulations - Breach of condition of taxi licence - Imposition of condition by Director General of Department - Whether statutory power to impose conditions constrained or restricted by lack of regulations prescribing categories of taxi in respect of which they might be imposed - Whether condition valid

(Page 2)

Statutes - Interpretation - Imposition of conditions on taxi plates - Whether have to be imposed in respect of specific taxi plates or may be imposed in respect of types or categories of taxi plates generally

Statutes - Interpretation - Imposition of conditions relating to "vehicle standards" - Whether condition requiring taxi sign be covered or removed when taxi not operating one "in relation to" vehicle standards - Whether condition valid under alternative source of power

Legislation:

Taxi Act 1994 (WA), s 20, s 40

Taxi Regulations 1995 (WA), regs 3, 5, 5A, 5B, 6, 19

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: A

Representation:

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Hewitt v Feinas

Details

AGLC: Hewitt v Feinas [2005] WASCA 3
Case: [2005] WASCA 3
Decision Date: 14 JANUARY 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hewitt v Feinas, the dispute before the court involved the validity of a condition imposed on the appellant's taxi licence by the Director General of the Department. The respondent, Feinas, sought to enforce the condition, which the appellant argued was invalid. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant argued that the condition was not valid as the Director General lacked the statutory power to impose such conditions due to the absence of regulations specifying categories of taxis for which these conditions could be applied. Additionally, the appellant challenged the interpretation of the statutes, arguing that conditions must be imposed in relation to specific taxi plates rather than types or categories of taxi plates generally.

The court was required to decide whether the statutory power to impose conditions on taxi licences was constrained or restricted by the lack of regulations prescribing categories of taxis. Furthermore, the court had to determine whether the condition imposing a requirement to cover or remove a taxi sign when the taxi was not in operation was valid under an alternative source of power, specifically if it related to "vehicle standards."

The court found that the Director General had the statutory power to impose the condition, even in the absence of regulations specifying categories of taxis. The court interpreted the statutes to allow conditions to be imposed on types or categories of taxi plates generally, rather than requiring specific imposition on individual taxi plates. Additionally, the court held that the condition relating to the taxi sign was valid under an alternative source of power, as it was "in relation to" vehicle standards. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the condition imposed on the appellant's taxi licence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.