Hopkins v Road Transport Authority - [2025] ACAT 61

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

HOPKINS v ROAD TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
(Administrative Review) [2025] ACAT 61

AT 5/2025
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW - Road Transport (General) Act1999 – review of two decisions by Access Canberra, acting through the Road Transport Authority ("the Authority") - Decision to require a driver to undergo a medical examination, and to provide a report of the examination before granting a driver licence - Decision to suspend a driver licence for failure to comply with the requirements to undergo a medical examination and provide a medical report - Medical history of drivers and the requirement for drivers to undergo a medical assessment at least every two years – Authority’s responsibility to ensure drivers are fit to operate vehicles safely – Balancing public safety with privacy protections and potential data breaches – Tribunal’s powers to decide an application on the papers.

Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 s 7, 54, 68
Road Transport (General) Regulation 2000 s 88
Road Transport (General) Act 1999 ss 16, 91, 95
Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Regulation 2000 ss 78, 78A, 87
Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 ss 6, 7

Cases cited:Applicant 362024 v Director General [2025] ACAT 28
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) HCA 28
Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31

Tribunal:Member K Reddy
Date of Orders:  10 September 2025
Date of Reasons for Decision:      10 September 2025
Date of Publication:  17 September 2025
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY          )
CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL     )          AT 5/2025

BETWEEN:

ROSS HOPKINS
Applicant

AND:

ROAD TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
Respondent

TRIBUNAL:Member K Reddy

DATE:10 September 2025

ORDER

The Tribunal orders that:

The medical examination decision under review is confirmed.
The suspension decision under review is confirmed.
The application is dismissed.
…………………………..

Member K Reddy

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

This is a review application under section 95 of the Road Transport(General) Act1999 (the RT General Act).
Mr Hopkins (the Applicant) is seeking review of the following two decisions made by Access Canberra, acting through the Road Transport Authority (the Respondent):
(a)The decision to require the Applicant to undergo a medical examination, and to provide a report of the examination, in accordance with section 78 (2) of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Regulation2000 (the Regulation) (the medical examination decision); and
(b)The decision to suspend the Applicant's driver licence under section 87 (1) of the Regulation (the suspension decision) because the Applicant failed to comply with the requirements of the medical examination decision.
The Applicant seeks to have both decisions set aside, including an order that no further medical assessments be imposed unless the Applicant consents voluntarily to providing his personal health information.
Deciding the application on the papers
On 24 February 2025, the Tribunal gave notice to the parties that it proposed to decide the application on the basis of documents,…

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 Hopkins v Road Transport Authority

Details

AGLC: Hopkins v Road Transport Authority [2025] ACAT 61
Case: [2025] ACAT 61
Decision Date: 10 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Hopkins v Road Transport Authority, the applicant challenged decisions made by the respondent regarding the suspension of their driver's licence and the requirement to undergo a medical examination. The dispute was heard and determined by the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal involved whether the respondent's decision to suspend the applicant's licence and to require a medical examination were lawful and justified. Specifically, the Tribunal needed to determine if the respondent's actions were discriminatory or arbitrary, whether the applicant was given a fair opportunity to present evidence, and whether the respondent's procedural omissions caused substantive unfairness.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's decision to suspend the applicant's licence was made according to clear and objective criteria and was not discriminatory or arbitrary. The respondent had discretionary power under section 87(1)(k) of the Regulation to suspend the licence if satisfied on reasonable grounds that the applicant had not complied with the requirements. The Tribunal noted that while there was a procedural omission under section 88(1)(c) of the Road Transport (General) Regulation 2000, the notice otherwise met statutory requirements. The Tribunal concluded that the procedural defect did not result in substantive unfairness or prejudice to the applicant. The Tribunal further found that the requirement for a medical examination was a reasonable measure to ensure public safety, and the applicant's privacy concerns were balanced against this objective.

The Tribunal confirmed the respondent's decisions and dismissed the application for review. The Tribunal emphasised that the regulatory scheme aims to balance personal privacy with the paramount objective of public safety, and the potential risks to the public outweighed any benefits the applicant might gain from non-compliance.

The Tribunal orders that:
1. The medical examination decision under review is confirmed.
2. The suspension decision under review is confirmed.
3. The application is dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal orders that:

The medical examination decision under review is confirmed.

The suspension decision under review is confirmed.

The application is 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

The decision made by the Respondent was not discriminatory or arbitrary. It was applied to the Applicant on the basis of clear and objective criteria.On the suspension decision: Section 87(1)(k) of the Regulation gives the Respondent discretionary power to suspend the Applicant's driver licence on its own initiative if satisfied on reasonable grounds that the Applicant has not complied with the Respondents requirements. Licensing authorities have a responsibility to ensure drivers are fit to operate vehicles safely, but this must be done without unfairly targeting individuals or groups. Suspensions should be based on a reasonable assessment of the individual's fitness to drive, considering the specific condition and its potential impact on driving ability. The Applicant was afforded fair opportunity to present evidence of their fitness to drive, by submitting a medical report, but chose not to comply. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent was authorised under section 87(1)(k) to suspend the Applicant’s licence due to the Applicants non-compliance. While there was a procedural omission under section 88(1)(c) Road Transport (General) Regulation 2000, the notice otherwise satisfied the statutory requirements, including stating the basis of the decision and effective date. The procedural defect did not cause substantive unfairness or prejudice. As stated in Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority[7], not every failure to comply with a procedural requirement invalidates a decision.[7] Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) HCA 28 The Tribunal acknowledges the Applicant’s privacy concerns as genuine and recognises the burden such requirements may place on individuals with medical conditions. However, the regulatory scheme aims to balance personal privacy with the paramount objective of public safety. The Applicant's assertions concerning potential misuse of data, while important, are speculative and unsubstantiated in the present matter. The use and protection of personal health information is regulated by applicable privacy legislation and Access Canberra’s stated privacy practices. The evidence before the Tribunal leads to the inexorable conclusion that, in all of the circumstances, any benefit which the Applicant might obtain from not complying with the legislative requirements would be outweighed by the potential risks both to himself and to the general public. The Tribunal finds that that the reviewable decisions are, in each case, the correct and preferable decision and each is confirmed. Pursuant to section 68(3)(a) of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008, the Tribunal orders as follows:1.The medical examination decision is confirmed.2.The suspension decision is confirmed.3.The application for review is dismissed.…….…………………..

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.