Rowe v Roads and Maritime Services

Link copied
Case Copied 18 min read

Administrative Decisions Tribunal


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Rowe v Roads & Maritime Services [2012] NSWADT 281
Hearing dates:30 October 2012
Decision date: 30 October 2012
Jurisdiction:General Division
Before: S Montgomery, Judicial Member
Decision:

1. The decision is affirmed in so far as it relates to Mr Rowe's taxi driver authority.

2. The decision is set aside in so far as it relates to Mr Rowes Authority to drive a hire car. In its place the decision is made that the authority to drive a hire car is reinstated.

Catchwords: Authority to drive a taxi cab - Authority to drive a a private hire vehicle - cancellation - fit and proper person
Legislation Cited: Passenger Transport Act 1990
Passenger Transport Regulation 2007
Cases Cited: Assi v Director General Transport NSW [2012] NSWADT 7
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 46 FLR 409
Saadieh v Director General, Department of Transport [1999] NSW ADT 68
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: James Rowe (Applicant)
Roads & Maritime Services (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel
I Latham (Applicant)
Smythe Wozniak (Respondent)
File Number(s):123102

reasons for decision

  1. GENERAL DIVISION (S MONTGOMERY, (JUDICIAL MEMBER)): Mr Rowe ("the Applicant") has held authorities under the Passenger Transport Act 1990 ("the Act") that have authorised him to drive a taxi cab and a private hire vehicle.

  1. In May 2012 Roads & Maritime Services ("the Respondent") made the determination to cancel those authorities pursuant to sections 33F and 40E of the Act. The Applicant has applied to the Tribunal for external review of that determination.

  1. In the Statement of Reasons provided in relation to the determination the decision maker stated:

You have been issued with an infringement by the NSW Police Force for carrying out a private hire vehicle service that was not pre booked in accordance with the Passenger Transport Regulation 2007.
...
The Reasoning process that led to the decision
As the delegate of [Transport for NSW (TfNSW)], [Roads and Maritime Services (RMS)] has a continuing obligation under the Passenger Transport Act 1990, to ensure that persons authorised to drive public passenger vehicles are fit and proper persons with sufficient responsibility and aptitude to drive the vehicle in accordance with the conditions and standards under which the vehicle concerned is operated and in accordance with law and custom.
You were previously issued with a private hire vehicle authority (10 November 2012) and re-issued with your taxi-cab authority (2 February 2012) after the cancelled of your taxi-cab authority in November 2009. The cancellation in 2009 was based upon your complaints history and your convictions, 27 October 2009, where you were sentenced as following:
-in relation to dockets in 2006, convicted of 174 offences and placed on a Bond pursuant to Section 9, to be of good behaviour for two (2) years.
-In relation to the balance of the offences (322) you were convicted and sentenced to periodic detention of 8 months with non-parole period of 6 months. (111) You were…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rowe 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
[2012] NSWADT 281
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Rowe v Roads and Maritime Services, the respondent sought to cancel the applicant's authority to drive a taxi and a hire car. The decision to cancel was based on findings that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to hold such a licence. The dispute was heard and determined by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue that the court needed to decide was whether the respondent had correctly determined that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to hold a taxi or hire car driver's licence. This required the court to review the evidence and submissions presented to the respondent and assess whether the decision was legally sound and supported by the evidence. The court also had to consider whether the decision to cancel the hire car licence was proportionate to the circumstances.

The court found that the decision to cancel the taxi driver's licence was correctly made, as the evidence supported the finding that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to hold such a licence. However, the court held that the decision to cancel the hire car driver's licence was not supported by the evidence and was therefore unlawful. The court set aside the decision to cancel the hire car driver's licence and reinstated the applicant's authority to drive a hire car. The decision regarding the taxi driver's licence was affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision is affirmed in so far as it relates to Mr Rowe's taxi driver authority.

2. The decision is set aside in so far as it relates to Mr Rowes Authority to drive a hire car. In its place the decision is made that the authority to drive a hire car is reinstated.

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.