Inaizi v Roads and Maritime Services - [2013] NSWADT 45

Administrative Decisions Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Inaizi v Roads and Maritime Services [2013] NSWADT 45
Hearing dates: 23 October 2012 and 17 December 2012
Decision date: 27 February 2013
Jurisdiction: General Division
Before: C Huntsman, Judicial member
Decision:
The decision is affirmed

Catchwords: Fit and proper person; law and custom; alleged sexually inappropriate remarks by driver; public safety
Legislation Cited: Sections 4, 33 Passenger Transport Act 1990
Cases Cited: AJO v Director-General Department of Transport [2012] NSWADT 101 (25 May 2012); Director General, Department of Transport v Z (No.2) (GD) [2002] NSWADTAP 37; Department of Transport and Infrastructure v Murray [2011] NSWADTAP 16 (8 April 2011); Nasour v Director-General, Transport NSW[2011] NSWADT 91;Director General, Transport NSW v AIC (GD) [2011] NSWADTAP 65;
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Harbi Inaizi (Applicant)
Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)
Representation: H Inaizi (Applicant in person)
Smythe Wozniak Legal (Respondent)

File Number(s): 123233

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

This was an application by Mr Harbi Inaizi, the applicant, for review of a decision of the respondent, Roads and Maritime Services, to cancel his authority to drive taxi cabs.

The applicant's authorisation to drive taxi cabs was cancelled by the respondent and advised to the applicant by letter dated 24 July 2012. The decision was affirmed on internal review on14 August 2012. By application dated 17 August 2012, registered by the tribunal on 21 August 2012, the applicant requested review of the decision by the tribunal.

The respondent's statement of reasons indicates that the respondent gave consideration to a complaint that on 25 May 2012 the applicant made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to a female passenger in his taxi cab. The respondent also considered the applicant's overall complaints history noting that since receiving a caution in November 2011 about the number of complaints, two further complaints had been registered. The respondent considered the failure of the applicant to notify the respondent of traffic offences as required as an authorised taxi driver; and an allegation that the applicant had driven his taxi while his driver's licence was suspended. The respondent referred to requirements that the applicant be a fit and proper person, and possess sufficient responsibility and aptitude to drive the vehicle in accordance with law and custom and in accordance with the conditions under which the taxi service is operated. The respondent decided that the applicant did not meet the required standards for authorisation and decided to cancel his authority.

The evidence

The applicant gave oral evidence to the tribunal at the hearing. The applicant's evidence included his written response dated 9 July 2012 to the 'show cause letter' sent to him by the respondent; his submission on his request for internal review dated 28 July 2012, and his application to the tribunal.

The respondent's evidence included the documents in the respondent's file, a transcript of a record of interview dated 22 June 2012 between the respondent's officers and the applicant; the statement of Mr Valdis Sermulkis dated 1 November 2012…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Inaizi v Roads and Maritime Services 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NSWADT 45
Decision Date: 27 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Inaizi v Roads and Maritime Services involved a challenge by the appellant, Inaizi, against a decision by the respondent, Roads and Maritime Services, to revoke his driver's licence. The appellant, who was employed as a bus driver, was accused of making sexually inappropriate remarks to a passenger, leading to an investigation and the subsequent decision to revoke his licence. The primary dispute was whether the decision to revoke the licence was justified and whether the appellant was a fit and proper person to hold a driver's licence, considering the alleged misconduct.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the decision to revoke the appellant's licence was lawful, whether the decision-maker appropriately considered the relevant statutory criteria, and whether the alleged conduct warranted such a severe penalty. The court needed to examine the principles of natural justice and the statutory provisions governing the revocation of driver's licences under the Road Transport Act. Additionally, the court had to determine the weight to be given to the appellant's cultural background and customs in assessing his conduct and fitness to hold a licence.

The court found that the decision to revoke the appellant's licence was justified and properly made. It held that the decision-maker had appropriately considered the statutory criteria and the seriousness of the appellant's conduct. The court emphasised that public safety and the need to maintain public confidence in the transport industry were paramount. It was noted that the alleged remarks had a significant impact on the passenger and could potentially endanger the safety of others if the appellant continued in his role as a driver. The court further held that the appellant's cultural background, while relevant, did not excuse the inappropriate conduct. The decision was affirmed, and the revocation of the appellant's licence was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision is affirmed

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Inaizi v Roads and Maritime Services [2013] NSWADT 45
Hearing dates:	23 October 2012 and 17 December 2012
Decision date:	27 February 2013
Jurisdiction:	General Division
Before:	C Huntsman, Judicial member
Decision:	The decision is affirmed
Catchwords:	Fit and proper person; law and custom; alleged sexually inappropriate remarks by driver; public safety
Legislation Cited:	Sections 4, 33 Passenger Transport Act 1990
Cases Cited:	AJO v Director-General Department of Transport [2012] NSWADT 101 (25 May 2012); Director General, Department of Transport v Z (No.2) (GD) [2002] NSWADTAP 37; Department of Transport and Infrastructure v Murray [2011] NSWADTAP 16 (8 April 2011); Nasour v Director-General, Transport NSW[2011] NSWADT 91;Director General, Transport NSW v AIC (GD) [2011] NSWADTAP 65;
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Harbi Inaizi (Applicant) Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)
Representation:	H Inaizi (Applicant in person) Smythe Wozniak Legal (Respondent)
File Number(s):	123233