Sodiki v Roads and Maritime Services

Link copied
Case Copied 23 min read

Administrative Decisions Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sodiki v Roads and Maritime Services [2013] NSWADT 145
Hearing dates:5 June 2013
Decision date: 21 June 2013
Jurisdiction:General Division
Before: P H Molony, Judicial Member
Decision:

The decision to cancel Mr Sodiki's driver authority is affirmed.

Catchwords: Passenger Transport - taxi driver authority - cancellation - alleged sexually explicit suggestion by driver - fitness and propriety - repute - public safety
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Passenger Transport Act 1990
Cases Cited: Abdou -v- Director General, Department of Transport [1999] NSWADT 98
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
Commissioner for ACT Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 589
Director General, Transport NSW v AIC (GD) [2011] NSWADTAP 65
Department of Transport and Infrastructure v Murray (GD) [2011] NSWADTAP 16
Director General, Department of Transport v Z (No.2) (GD) [2002] NSWADTAP 37
Ex Parte Tziniolis; Re Medical Practitioners Act (1966) 67 SR (NSW) 448
Georgiou v Ministry of Transport [2007] NSWADT 123.
Haideri -v- Director General, Department of Transport [1999] NSWADT 61
Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No. 2) (1955) 93 CLR 127
Inaizi v Roads and Maritime Services [2013] NSWADT 45
Melbourne v The Queen [1999] 198 CLR 1
Pillai v Messiter [No.2] (1989) 16 NSWLR 197
Re T and the Director of Youth and Community Services [1980] 1 NSWLR 392,
Saadieh v Director General, Department of Transport [1999] NSWADT 68
Sikder -v- Director General, Department of Transport [2002] NSWADT 148
Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board 20 SASR 70
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Vilame Sodiki (Applicant)
Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)
Representation: Sydney Legal Practice Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Smythe Wozniak (Respondent)
File Number(s):133154

reasons for decision

Introduction

  1. Mr Sodiki holds an authority to drive a taxicab issued under the Passenger Transport Act 1990 (the PTA).

  1. On 14 May 2013 he received a notice from Roads and Maritime Services (the Agency) advising of a decision to cancel his authority. The Agency was satisfied of the validity of a complaint that Mr Sodiki had sexually propositioned a 17-year-old male who was travelling in his taxi on 26 March 2013. The decision also cited as a reason for cancellation a series of 11 past complaints regarding Mr Sodiki going back to April 2002.

  1. Mr Sodiki was first issued with an authority to drive a taxicab on 16 June 2000. He most recently renewed his authority and paid the applicable fee on 2 May 2013. All of the prior complaints relied on by the Agency were made before it sent him the recent renewal notice.

  1. On 16 May 2013 Mr Sodiki applied to this Tribunal to review the decision of the Agency to cancel his authority, and to grant a stay of the cancellation decision until his review application was heard. At a hearing on 21 May 2012 I decided to deal with the application despite the fact that an internal review had not been sought…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sodiki 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 145
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sodiki, an applicant, brought proceedings in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal against the Roads and Maritime Services, seeking review of a decision to cancel his driver authority. The cancellation was based on allegations that the applicant had made a sexually explicit suggestion to a passenger, leading to a complaint and an investigation by the respondent. The applicant denied the allegation and claimed that the decision to cancel his driver authority was unreasonable. The case was heard in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue was whether the Tribunal was correct to affirm the decision of the respondent to cancel the applicant's driver authority. The applicant argued that the decision was unreasonable and that there was no evidence to support the allegation. The respondent maintained that the applicant's conduct, if proven, would demonstrate unfitness and impropriety, which would justify the cancellation of the driver authority. The respondent also contended that the cancellation was necessary to protect public safety.

The Tribunal found that the decision to cancel the driver authority was lawful. The Tribunal considered the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and the applicant's denial. The Tribunal held that the decision to cancel the driver authority was not unreasonable, as it was based on a finding that the applicant's conduct, if established, would be of a nature that would render him unfit to hold a driver authority. The Tribunal also noted that the reputation of the applicant and the need to protect public safety were relevant considerations. The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's appeal and affirmed the decision to cancel his driver authority.

The Tribunal's decision was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed. The cancellation of the applicant's driver authority was upheld, and no orders were made in favour of the applicant.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision to cancel Mr Sodiki's driver authority 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.