Miah v Roads and Maritime Services - [2013] NSWADT 264

Administrative Decisions Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Miah v Roads and Maritime Services [2013] NSWADT 264
Hearing dates: 14 November 2013
Decision date: 21 November 2013
Jurisdiction: General Division
Before: GD Walker, Judicial Member
Decision:
The decision under review is affirmed

Catchwords: Taxi driver authority - cancellation - false statutory declarations - seriousness -hardship irrelevant
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Oaths Act 1900; Passenger Transport Act 1990
Passenger Transport Regulation 2007
Cases Cited: Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409
Ghachame v Roads and Maritime Services [2013] NSWADT 144
Lal v Director-General, Department of Transport [2001] NSWADT 74
R v Einfeld [2009] NSWSC 119
Saadieh v Director-General, Department of Transport [1999] NSWADT 68
Sara v Director-General, Department of Transport [2003] NSWADT 157
Re T and Director-General of Youth and Community Services [1980] 1 NSWLR 392.
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Mohammed Rubel Miah (Applicant)
Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)
Representation: Oxford Lawyers (Applicant)
Smythe Wozniak (Respondent)

File Number(s): 133255

reasons for decision

Background

The applicant Mohammed Rubel Miah was born in Bangladesh on 7 August 1983. He obtained a New South Wales driver's licence in 2006. In January 2008 he was granted taxicab driver authority GR 1959 and in May 2008 taxicab operator accreditation No. 35569.

By letter dated 21 August 2013 the respondent Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) cancelled the applicant's operator accreditation and driver authority with immediate effect. On 26 August 2013 the applicant applied to this tribunal for a review of the cancellation decision.

At the hearing the applicant withdrew his review application in relation to the operator accreditation. This case therefore concerns only his taxicab driver authority No. GR 1959.

Section 33 of the Passenger Transport Act 1990 (PT Act) provides as follows:

33 Authorities

(1) RMS may, by the issue of authorities under this Division, authorise persons to drive taxi-cabs, subject to and in accordance with this Division. A person authorised under this Division is referred to in this Part as an "authorised taxi-cab driver".

(2) A person who drives a taxi-cab is guilty of an offence unless the person is an authorised taxi-cab driver.

Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units.

(3) The purpose of an authority under this Division is to attest:

(a) that the authorised person is considered to be of good repute and in all other respects a fit and proper person to be the driver of a taxi-cab, and

(b) that the authorised person is considered to have sufficient responsibility and aptitude to drive a taxi-cab:

(i) in accordance with the conditions under which the taxi-cab service concerned is operated, and

(ii) in accordance with law and custom.

(4) The regulations may create categories or grades of authorities.

(5) Without limitation, the regulations may provide that subsection (2) does not apply in specified circumstances, including, for example, when a taxi-cab is being driven to a place to have it repaired or serviced.

Section 33F…

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 Miah 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 264
Decision Date: 21 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Miah v Roads and Maritime Services involved a taxi driver who had his authority cancelled by the defendant. The driver challenged the decision, claiming that the cancellation was unjust and that the seriousness of the offence was not sufficient to warrant such a penalty. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the cancellation of the taxi driver's authority was an appropriate response to his submission of false statutory declarations. The court had to consider the nature of the driver's actions and whether they warranted such a severe penalty. The court also had to consider the potential hardship that the cancellation would cause the driver and his family.

In its decision, the court found that the driver's actions were serious enough to warrant the cancellation of his authority. The court held that the driver's submission of false statutory declarations was a breach of his duty as a taxi driver and that the cancellation was a reasonable response to this breach. The court also found that the potential hardship caused to the driver and his family was not a relevant consideration in this case. The court held that the public interest in maintaining the integrity of the taxi industry outweighed any potential hardship caused to the driver. The court affirmed the decision to cancel the driver's authority.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review 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:	Miah v Roads and Maritime Services [2013] NSWADT 264
Hearing dates:	14 November 2013
Decision date:	21 November 2013
Jurisdiction:	General Division
Before:	GD Walker, Judicial Member
Decision:	The decision under review is affirmed
Catchwords:	Taxi driver authority - cancellation - false statutory declarations - seriousness -hardship irrelevant
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Oaths Act 1900; Passenger Transport Act 1990 Passenger Transport Regulation 2007
Cases Cited:	Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409 Ghachame v Roads and Maritime Services [2013] NSWADT 144 Lal v Director-General, Department of Transport [2001] NSWADT 74 R v Einfeld [2009] NSWSC 119 Saadieh v Director-General, Department of Transport [1999] NSWADT 68 Sara v Director-General, Department of Transport [2003] NSWADT 157 Re T and Director-General of Youth and Community Services [1980] 1 NSWLR 392.
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Mohammed Rubel Miah (Applicant) Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)
Representation:	Oxford Lawyers (Applicant) Smythe Wozniak (Respondent)
File Number(s):	133255