Administrative Decisions Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Nomchong v Ku-ring-gai Council [2013] NSWADT 291 Hearing dates: 10 December 2013 Decision date: 19 December 2013 Jurisdiction: General Division Before: Magistrate N Hennessy, Deputy President Decision: The application is dismissed
Catchwords: MERITS REVIEW - whether applicant has applied for review of a decision to charge a fee for the release of his vehicles - whether the Tribunal has power to extend the time for the making of the application Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Impounding Act 1993Cases Cited: Attorney-General (Cth) v Oates (1999) 198 CLR 162
Harding v Coburn [1976] 2 NZLR 577
Parks and Playgrounds Movement Inc v Newcastle City Council [2010] NSWLEC 231
Re Bland Brothers and the Council of the Borough of Inglewood (No 2) [1920] VLR 522Texts Cited: Pearce & Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia, 6th ed (2006) Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Gregory Nomchong (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)Representation: G Nomchong (Applicant in person)
T Messenger (Respondent)
File Number(s): 133322
reasons for decision
Introduction
The Kur-ring-gai Council impounded two of Mr Nomchong's motor vehicles (Y67032 & P85293). Mr Nomchong says that the two vehicles were registered and legally parked when they were impounded. He received the impounding notice on 18 September 2013 and moved the vehicles to another place in the same street. But the vehicles were impounded the next day and Mr Nomchong had to recover them from Pickles Auctions yard.
Mr Nomchong has applied to the Tribunal for a review of the impounding decision. He applied more than 28 days after he was notified of that decision. Mr Nomchong also says that he has applied for a review of the decision to charge a fee for the release of the vehicles. The Council does not accept that Mr Nomchong has made the second application.
Three preliminary issues arise:
(1) whether Mr Nomchong has applied for a review of the decision to charge a fee;
(2) whether the Tribunal has power to extend the time for the making of the application;
(3) if the Tribunal has power to extend time, whether the time should be extended.
Has Mr Nomchong applied for a review of the decision to charge a fee for the release of the vehicles?
Under s 38 of the Impounding Act 1993 the owner of an impounded item may apply to the Tribunal for a review of the decision to impound the item. The owner may also apply for a review of any fee or charge required to be paid for the release of the item. The relevant parts of s 38 are set out below:
(1) The owner of an impounded item may apply to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal for a review of the decision to impound the item, but only on the ground that the impounding of the item was unlawful.
(2) The owner of an impounded item may apply to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal for a review of any fee or charge required to be paid…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Nomchong v Ku-ring-gai Council 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2013] NSWADT 291
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were twofold: first, whether the applicant had indeed applied for a review of the fee decision within the requisite timeframe; and second, whether the Land and Environment Court had the authority to extend the time for the making of such an application. These questions required careful examination of both statutory provisions and case law to ensure that the applicant's procedural rights were protected, while also upholding the Council's decision-making processes.
The court examined the applicant's application for a review and concluded that it was not made within the prescribed period. Further, the court found that it did not possess the power to extend the time for such an application. The reasoning was grounded in the statutory framework governing the review process and the principle that the court should not usurp the legislative intent by extending deadlines. The applicant's arguments were considered but ultimately found insufficient to warrant a departure from the established legal framework.
As a result, the court dismissed the application. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to statutory timelines in administrative law and the limitations of judicial power in extending procedural deadlines. The dismissal of the application affirmed the Council's decision to charge the fee for the release of Mr. Nomchong's vehicles, thereby concluding the matter.
Orders
Orders of the court
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.