Kumaran v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue

[2006] NSWADT 269

CITATION:	Kumaran v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2006] NSWADT 269
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Indra Kumaran RESPONDENT Chief Commissioner of State Revenue
FILE NUMBER:	063277
HEARING DATES:	22/08/2006
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	08/22/2006
EXTEMPORE DECISION DATE:	08/22/2006
DATE OF DECISION:	09/14/2006
BEFORE:	O'Connor K - DCJ (President)
CATCHWORDS:	Jurisdiction
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Fines Act 1996
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT No appearance RESPONDENT M England of counsel instructed by G MacKenzie, Crown Solicitor's Office
ORDERS:	The application for review is dismissed for want of jurisdiction

1 Mr Kumaran has applied under s 89 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (ADT Act) to the Registrar by letter dated 1 September 2006 for provision of written reasons in relation to the following order made on 22 August 2006:

1. Application for review dismissed as being without jurisdiction.

2. Order to take effect in 10 days’ time (i.e. 1 September 2006), so that Mr Kumaran can have any further written submissions considered in the meantime.

2 This order was notified to Mr Kumaran by the Registrar by letter dated 23 August 2006. Mr Kumaran’s letter to the Registrar dated 1 September does not contain any submissions. The order has therefore taken effect.

3 Mr Kumaran’s application for review, seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, was filed on 21 July 2006. The Registrar notified him, by letter dated 1 August 2006 that a hearing would be held on 22 August 2006 at 12 noon on the question of whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the application. Mr Kumaran failed to attend. The respondent, the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue, did appear through Ms England of counsel.

4 The Office of State Revenue (OSR) manages revenue derived from fines, including traffic fines. Mr Kumaran has incurred traffic fines. He has been the subject of court fine enforcement orders. He claims that he is not in a position to meet the fines. The State Debt Recovery Office (SDRO), a division of the OSR, deals with claims of this kind in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Fines Act 1996 (Fines Act), Part 4, Division 8.

5 In his application for review Mr Kumaran gives a history of his representations to the OSR and to Members of Parliament and others over his inability to meet the fines. The decision that he seeks to review is referred to in a letter dated 16 May 2006 from the Commissioner of State Revenue, Mr R G Smith. It is a decision of the Fine Enforcement Hardship Review Board relating to an application by Mr Kumaran to have reviewed a decision by the State Debt Recovery Office to refuse to write off his outstanding fines. The letter notes that, while not permitting write-off, the Board did direct the SDRO to grant him time to make arrangements to pay the fines by fortnightly instalments of $40. The letter noted that Mr Kumaran had ‘now exhausted all avenues of appeal’.

6 Section 38(1) of the ADT Act provides:

‘The Tribunal has jurisdiction under an enactment to review a decision (or a class of decisions) if the enactment provides that applications may be made to it for a review of any such decision (or class of decisions) made by an administrator:

(a) in the exercise of functions conferred or imposed by or under the enactment, or

(b) in the exercise of any other functions of the administrator identified by the enactment.

7 Mr Kumaran did not in his application for review identify the Tribunal’s source of jurisdiction. As the matters that he wishes to raise have to do with relief from payment of fines, Ms England referred the Tribunal to the scheme of the relevant provisions in the Fines Act.

8 The Hardship Review Board is established by s 101A:

‘ 101A Hardship Review Board

(1) There is to be a Hardship Review Board consisting of:

(a) the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue, and

(b) the Secretary of the Treasury, and

(c) the Director-General of the Attorney General’s Department.

(2) A member of the Hardship Review Board may appoint a person to act in the place of the member at meetings of the Board.

(3) An acting member, while so acting, has the functions of, and is taken to be, a member of the Hardship Review Board.’

9 The jurisdiction of the Hardship Review Board is dealt with by s 101B:

‘ 101B Reviews by Hardship Review Board

(1) The Hardship Review Board may, on the application of a fine defaulter, review a decision by the State Debt Recovery Office to refuse an application by a fine defaulter for time to pay a fine or to have a fine written off.

(2) A fine defaulter may not make more than one application under this section in relation to the same fine.

(3) The Hardship Review Board may determine the procedure for a review and may conduct a review in the absence of the parties.

(4) The State Debt Recovery Office may suspend enforcement action against a fine defaulter who makes an application under this section but is not required to do so unless given a direction under this section.

(5) The Hardship Review Board may direct that enforcement action under this Part against a fine defaulter be suspended pending its review, if it thinks it appropriate in the circumstances.

(6) On a review, the Hardship Review Board may direct the State Debt Recovery Office to allow a fine defaulter further time to pay a fine under section 100, or to write off an unpaid fine under section 101.

(7) The Hardship Review Board may give a direction under this section if it thinks it is appropriate to do so having regard to the circumstances of the fine defaulter and the matters set out in section 100 or section 101 (1A) (a) and the guidelines issued under section 120, as the case requires.’

10 There is nothing in this provision, or elsewhere so far as the Tribunal can find, conferring any jurisdiction on the Tribunal to review decisions of the Hardship Review Board. There are decisions made by the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue under State revenue laws which are reviewable in the Revenue Division of the Tribunal; but this decision does not fall within that area.

11 Accordingly, on 22 August 2006, the Tribunal formed the view that the objection made by the respondent was well founded. As Mr Kumaran had not attended, and no explanation had been received for his absence, the order dismissing the proceedings was delayed for 10 days so as to give him an opportunity to put in any submissions to the contrary of these views. He has not done so.

Order

The application for review is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.