Khalaf v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force; Qld Protection Security Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force

[2017] NSWCATAD 380

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Khalaf v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force; QLD Protection Security Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 380

Hearing dates:

7 November 2017

Date of orders:

07 November 2017

Decision date:

07 November 2017

Jurisdiction:

Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division

Before:

Hennessy LCM, Deputy President

Decision:

Matter: 2017/00272199
1. The Decision made on 05 July 2017 to revoke the applicant’s 1AC security licence is stayed pending further order of the Tribunal
2. The request by Mohamed Khalaf to stay the decision made by NSW Police Force on 05 July 2017 to revoke the applicant’s 2D security licence is refused.

 Matter: 2017/00272214
1. The request by QLD Protection Security Pty Ltd to stay the decision made by NSW Police Force to revoke the applicant’s corporation master licence is refused.

Catchwords:

INTERIM ORDERS – application for stay of decision to revoke security industry licences – public interest considerations

Legislation Cited:

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)

Category:

Procedural and other rulings

Parties:

Matter: 2017/00272199
Mohamed Khalaf (Applicant)
Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent)

  Matter:
2017/00272214
QLD Protection Security Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
Matter: 2017/00272199
M A Robinson SC (Applicant)

 

Matter:
2017/00272214
M A Robinson SC (Applicant)

 

Solicitors:
Matter: 2017/00272199
Aquila Lawyers (Applicant)
Bartier Perry Lawyers (Respondent)

  Matter:
2017/00272214
Aquila Lawyers (Applicant)
Bartier Perry Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2017/00272199; 2017/00272214

Publication restriction:

Nil

Ex Tempore REASONS FOR DECISION

1. DEPUTY PRESIDENT HENNESSY: There are two applications before me, one in relation to Mr Khalaf and his personal security licence, and the other in relation to the master licence held by QLD Protection Security Pty Ltd, for stays of decisions effectively revoking those licences. There are two affidavits in evidence from Mr Khalaf and written and oral submissions provided from both sides.

2. The application is under s 60 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW). I am satisfied that a stay is necessary to secure the effectiveness of the hearing and that is because, regardless of Mr Khalaf’s financial circumstances, he has suffered loss from the fact that a company, of which he is director, is no longer trading, and that he does not have his personal security industry licence either. Even if he is successful ultimately on the applications, he will not receive any financial compensation. That is a matter I take into account although it is a threshold matter that allows me to then look at whether I should exercise the discretion to make an interim order or not.

3. In exercising that discretion I obviously have to take in the matters in s 60(3), the interests of the person who may be affected, submissions made by the administrator and the public interest. The public interest is the most significant consideration to be taken into account. There are allegations set out in some five hundred pages of the s 58 documents. The respondent has made findings in relation to the behaviour of Mr Khalaf personally, and as a director of the company. It is not the Tribunal’s role on a stay application to make any ultimate findings about that material. It suffices to say that that material raises serious issues as to Mr Khalaf’s fitness to both have a personal licence and the master licence. That is an issue that will have to be determined after close forensic analysis by the Tribunal at a hearing. However I am satisfied, on the basis of the submissions made by Mr Mattson representing the respondent, that there is evidence supporting their decision. It will be a matter for the Tribunal at the hearing to make findings and determine the significance of any risk to the public interest.

4. On the basis of the extensive allegations I refuse the application for a stay in relation to the company licence. I think the individual licence is in a different category. Apart from the 2D aspect, which relates to allowing Mr Khalaf to train staff, I am satisfied that pending a hearing of this matter an interim order should be granted in relation to the armoured guard and crowd control parts of the licences, that is 1A and 1C.

5. I also make an order expediting the hearing and I will make directions for that hearing to take place.

Orders

Matter: 2017/00272199

1. The Decision made on 05 July 2017 to revoke the applicant’s 1AC security licence is stayed pending further order of the Tribunal

2. The request by Mohamed Khalaf to stay the decision made by NSW Police Force on 05 July 2017 to revoke the applicant’s 2D security licence is refused.

Matter: 2017/00272214

1. The request by QLD Protection Security Pty Ltd to stay the decision made by NSW Police Force to revoke the applicant’s corporation master licence is refused.

**********

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

Registrar

Decision last updated: 05 February 2018