Spence v Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads
[2012] QCAT 184
•2 May 2012
| CITATION: | Spence v Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads [2012] QCAT 184 |
| PARTIES: | Glen Raymond Spence |
| v | |
| Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | GAR174-11 |
| MATTER TYPE: | General administrative review matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 29 and 30 February 2012 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Margaret McLennan, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 2 May 2012 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | 1. Decision confirmed |
| CATCHWORDS: | Motor vehicle inspection – Approved Inspection Station – statutory conditions for AIS approval – statutory conditions for approved examiner – road safety – safety certificate – defect notice – infringement notice – payment of penalty – conviction Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 20, 24 Code of Practice – Vehicle Inspection Guideline Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | Mr Craig Stevenson, Ace Solicitors, Ashgrove |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Robert Marsh, Crown Law |
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
On 15 March 2011 in a notice of immediate suspension and a notice of intention to cancel approvals, the Manager (Compliance) SEQ South Region, Department of Transport and Main Roads (the Respondent) decided pursuant to section 19(6) of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (TO(RUM) Act) to immediately suspend Mr Spence’s approval as an approved examiner, Approved Examiner’s number 13391 and approval as an Approved Inspection Station Nominee (AIS), AIS number 8403 and pursuant to section 19(1) of the TO(RUM) Act to invite Mr Spence to show cause why the approvals ought not be cancelled.
Mr Spence’s application to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (tribunal) for a stay under the Transport Planning and Co-ordination Act 1994 (TPC Act) of the Respondent’s decision was dismissed on 21 April 2011.[1]
[1]Spence v Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads [2011] QCAT 149.
Mr Spence had applied under section 65 of the TO(RUM) Act to the Respondent for an internal review of the suspension decision. On review under section 34 of the TPC Act, the Respondent decided on 14 June 2011 to confirm the original decision to cancel Mr Spence’s approvals as approved examiner and approval as an AIS Nominee. Mr Spence was advised that pursuant to section 65A of the TO(RUM) Act he had a right to apply to the tribunal for a review of the reviewed decision.
An application for leave to appeal was filed in the tribunal on 28 June 2011. A further application to stay the decision was dismissed in the tribunal on 21 July 2011. On 30 August 2011 the parties were granted leave to be legally represented in the proceedings.
This application is a review of the reviewable decision and pursuant to section 20(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (the QCAT Act) the purpose of the review is to produce the correct and preferable decision. Section 24 of the QCAT provides that the tribunal may confirm or amend the decision;[2] set aside the decision and substitute its own decision;[3] or set aside the decision and return the matter for reconsideration to the decision-maker for the decision, with the directions the tribunal considers appropriate.[4]
[2] Section 24(1)(a).
[3] Section 24(1)(b).
[4] Section 24(1)(c).
The standard of satisfaction necessary in reaching a determination on review is referred to as the balance of probabilities. There are serious consequences for Mr Spence in relation to his livelihood and so the tribunal requires clear[5] or cogent[6] evidence to support the Respondent’s decision.[7]
[5] Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336, 362.
[6] Rejfek v McElroy (1965) 112 CLR 517, 521.
[7] See also Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 67 ALJR 170, 171.
In its decision, the Respondent relied on two grounds under section 18 of the TO(RUM) Act. It alleged that Mr Spence:
a) breached the conditions of his approval under section 18(1)(b) of the TO(RUM) Act; and
b) was convicted of an offence against the Act under section 18(1)(c)(i) of the TO(RUM) Act.
The Respondent provided a statement folder including the reviewed decision, witness statements and detailed coloured photographs of alleged defects in motor vehicles.
The Applicant contends that the Respondent should not cancel Mr Spence’s approvals; cancellation of the approvals should not automatically follow payment of any penalty and a conviction and that a discretion should be exercised in the Applicant’s favour.[8]
[8]The Applicant did not identify the sections pursuant to which the Respondent should exercise the discretion not to cancel the approvals.
The Respondent’s evidence was set out in separate allegations in relation to four motor vehicles, the safety certificates that Mr Spence had signed and issued for each motor vehicle; the defect notices and infringement notices issued in respect of each vehicle.
The first and third allegations were initiated as a result of road intercepts by traffic inspectors employed by the Respondent. The second and fourth allegations were initiated by complaints from the owners of the motor vehicles.
Allegation 1: Toyota Corolla sedan – Safety Certificate number LV-J 538873 5[9]
[9]The details of allegations 1-4, the lists of defects, defect notices and infringement notices are copied from the Respondent’s Decision Notice dated 14 June 2011 and provided to the Applicant: Respondent’s Statement Folder pages 1-11.
On 17 July 2010 Mr Spence signed and issued this safety certificate as the AIS nominee (proprietor) and approved examiner certifying that the Toyota Corolla sedan[10], complied with the requirements of section 17(2)(b) of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management — Vehicle Standards and Safety) Regulation 1999 (Vehicle Standards Regulation 1999).
[10] VIN number KE70E9001893; registration number 852 RBI.
On 23 August 2010, Transport Inspector Brian Murphy (Murphy) examined this Toyota Corolla sedan and found the vehicle was defective.[11] A Defect Notice[12] was issued[13] requiring 13 rectifications of the listed defects:
[11] Section 13 Vehicle Standards Regulation 1999.
[12] D 579499 8.
[13] 23 August 2010.
(1) Secure battery.
(2) Fit missing lower steering column shroud to cover sharp and protruding objects.
(3) Secure all right side front seat retaining bolts at frame to vehicle body.
(4) Rectify cause of right side front seat base springs collapsed currently supported by a block of wood under seat base.
(5) Make fuel tank filler neck seals by use of correct cap.
(6) Not in dispute. Make windscreen washers operate effectively.
(7) Make left side reverse light operate effectively Not in dispute.
(8) Rectify cause of engine oil leaking onto roadway from rear of sump engine areas. Clean area after leak is rectified.
(9) Rectify cause of oil leaking from left side front suspension strut insert.
(10) Rectify cause of excessive movement at left side front wheel rim/bearing hub area.
(11) Rectify cause of right & left side rear brake linings contaminated by fluid /oil. Replace contaminated brake linings. Replace or repair leaking wheel cylinders.
(12) Repair all advanced rust areas at numerous points around vehicle body including both rear inner door frames/skins, left & right side upper "C" pillars at turret/inner door surrounds, left side front centre "A" pillar/inner door surround, lower radiator support panel – worst areas noted. Ensure all rust areas are carried out by removing advanced rust areas & welding in metal replacement panels of the same strength & integrity to that originally fitted by the vehicle manufacturer. All rust areas to be photographed along with vehicle identifying plates/vehicle prior to body filler or paint stages. Produce all photographs to AIS examiner at time of re-inspection.
(13) Make hand/parking brake operate effectively – rectify cause of excessive handbrake lever travel.
Murphy considered that items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 listed on the defect notice would have been present in the vehicle at the time Mr Spence issued the safety certificate.
By signing and issuing the safety certificate number when the vehicle concerned was in a defective condition, it is alleged that Mr Spence committed offences against sections 17(2)(b) and 17(6)(a) and 35 of the Vehicle Standards Regulation 1999 and the requirements of the Code of Practice — Vehicle Inspection Guideline (COP).
An Infringement Notice[14] was issued to Mr Spence in relation to this motor vehicle on 22 October 2010 in the penalty amount of $500.
Allegation 2: Ford Courier utility – Safety Certificate number LV-J 538776 7
[14] No. 5172867 7.
On 31 July 2010, Mr Spence signed and issued this safety certificate as AIS nominee (proprietor) and approved examiner, certifying that the Ford Courier utility[15] complied with the requirements of section 17(2)(b) of the Vehicle Standards Regulation 1999.
[15] Registration number 892 INZ and VIN number JCOAAASGHCRS40234.
On 25 August 2010, the vehicle was inspected at RACQ Vehicle Inspections, Eight Mile Plains. The RACQ inspector was of the opinion that the vehicle was defective and should not be driven on a road. The RACQ Inspector supplied Mr Glenn Robert Phillips (the owner of the vehicle and the person to whom Mr Spence issued the safety certificate) a comprehensive report of the defects.
On 25 August 2010 Transport Inspectors Gary Wiseman (Wiseman) and Wayne Whitmore examined the Ford Courier utility and found the vehicle was defective in accordance with section 13 of the Vehicle Standards Regulation 1999. A Defect Notice[16] was issued on 7 September 2010 stating the following actions were to be taken to rectify the defects:
(1) Ensure all braking systems & components meet manufacturer's specifications;
(2) Ensure all steering & suspension meet manufacturer's specifications;
(3) Ensure all chassis & body components meet manufacturer's specifications;
(4) Ensure all seats and seat belts meet manufacturer's specifications;
(5) Ensure all wheels and tyres meet manufacturer's specifications;
(6) Ensure all driveline systems & components meet manufacturer's specifications;
(7) Ensure all lights meet manufacturer's specifications;
(8) Ensure steering wheel complies with regulations (Vehicle Standards Regulation 1999);
(9) Ensure all fuel system components meet manufacturer's specifications.
[16] D 585845 7.
The defect notice also required the supply of "...documentation that chassis and body meet manufacturer's specification for strength. Documentation needs to be supplied by a suitably qualified person."
It was Wiseman's opinion that items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 listed above on the defect notice would have been present in the vehicle at the time Mr Spence issued the safety certificate. By signing and issuing the safety certificate when the vehicle concerned was in a defective condition, it is alleged that Mr Spence committed offences against sections 17(2)(b), 17(6)(a), and 35 of the Vehicle Standards Regulation 1999 and the requirements of the COP.
On 27 September 2010 an Infringement Notice[17] was issued to Mr Spence for signing the safety certificate when the vehicle was in a defective condition. It is alleged that the payment of this penalty constitutes a conviction for the purpose of section 18(1)(c)(i) of the TO(RUM) Act and is a ground for cancelling Mr Spence’s approvals.
Allegation 3: Ford Festiva sedan – Safety Certificate number LV-J 612893 6
[17] No. A 4 969816 5.
On 1 September 2010 Mr Spence signed and issued this safety certificate as the AIS nominee (proprietor) and approved examiner, certifying that a Ford Festiva sedan[18] complied with the requirements of section 19(4)(c) of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Vehicle Standards and Safety) Regulation 2010 (Vehicle Standards Regulation 2010).
[18] VIN number KNADB11K3S6322764.
On 9 September 2010 Transport Inspectors Gary Wiseman and Andy Wilson intercepted and examined the Ford Festiva sedan, and found the vehicle was defective in accordance with section 7 of the Vehicle Standards Regulation 2010.
It was noted the following actions should be taken to rectify the defects:
1) Repair faded headlamp lenses.
2) Fit brake and clutch pedal rubbers.
3) Rectify all engine and gearbox oil leaks and clean area after repair.
4) Repair or replace steering wheel grip.
5) Rectify torn door seals.
Carl James Irwin (previous owner of the vehicle) and David Robert Meyer (owner of the vehicle and person to whom Mr Spence issued the safety certificate) stated that they were present at the time Mr Spence inspected the vehicle, and that he did not raise the vehicle or look underneath or remove any wheels or road test the vehicle to perform a brake test prior to issuing the safety certificate.
By signing and issuing the safety certificate without inspecting the vehicle at all and certifying that the vehicle had no defects, Mr Spence created a document that contained information he knew was false and misleading. It is alleged that Mr Spence committed offences against sections 17(6)(a), 17(7)(a),[19] 19(4)(b), 19(4)(c), and 33 of the Vehicle Standards Regulation 2010, and the requirements of the COP.
[19]Sections 17(6)(a) and 17(7)(a) are not to be found in the Vehicle Standards Regulation 2010.
To issue the safety certificate in these circumstances when it is alleged that Mr Spence did not inspect the vehicle at all is a serious breach of the duties and responsibilities of an AIS nominee (proprietor) and approved examiner. This is a contravention of Mr Spence’s conditions of approval and a ground for cancelling his approvals under section 18(1)(b) of the TO(RUM) Act.
Allegation 4: Holden Rodeo utility – Safety Certificate number LV-J 833383 1
On 30 November 2010 Mr Spence signed and issued this safety certificate as the AIS nominee (proprietor) and approved examiner, certifying that a Holden Rodeo utility,[20] complied with the requirements of section 19(4)(c) of the Vehicle Standards Regulation 2010.
[20] Registration number 266 JUX, VIN number JAATFR17HP7102940.
On 7 January 2011, Transport Inspectors Wayne Whitmore (Whitmore) and Fred Ifopo intercepted and examined the Holden Rodeo utility and found it was defective in accordance with section 7 of the Vehicle Standards Regulation 2010. A Defect Notice[21] was issued stating the following actions were to be taken to rectify the defects:
[21] D5804999.
(1) Rectify oil leak at power steering system.
(2) Replace Left Hand & Right Hand front brake hoses.
(3) Ensure all shock absorbers meet Vehicle Safety Standards.
(4) Rectify oil leak at rear of transmission.
(5) Ensure transmission operation meets manufacturers specifications (gears slipping, gear selection erratic).
(6) Replace missing brake pedal rubber.
(7) Rectify loose steering wheel grip.
(8) Rectify damaged driver’s seat upholstery.
(9) Rectify operation of Right Hand Rear seat belt.
(10) Rectify operation of windscreen washers.
(11) Rectify brake warning light illumination.
(12) Make all lights operate correctly including Right Hand tail light and left side reverse light.
(13) Rectify operation of rear tray tail gate.
(14) Fit Left Hand Front side indicator as per manufacturer's specifications.
(15) Ensure all brakes operate correctly & pass a minimum of 60% during a brake efficiency test.
(16) Rectify Right Hand headlight not secure.
(17) Replace damaged Right Hand headlamp reflector.
(18) Rectify damaged Left Hand headlamp glass broken.
(19) Ensure headlamps aimed to meet Vehicle Safety Standards.
Whitmore considered that items 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16 and 17 listed above would have been present in the vehicle at the time Mr Spence issued the safety certificate.
By signing and issuing the safety certificate[22] when the vehicle concerned was in a defective condition, it is alleged that Mr Spence committed offences against sections 17(6)(a), 17(7)(a),[23] 19(4)(c) and 33 of the Vehicle Standards Regulation 2010, and the requirements of the COP. This is a contravention of Mr Spence’s conditions of approval and a ground for cancellation under section 18(1)(b) of the TO(RUM) Act.
[22] LV-J 833383 1.
[23]See footnote 19.
Evidence – Allegation 1
In relation to the Toyota Corolla sedan, the Applicant tendered an unsworn statement dated 20 June 2011[24] from Laurence Williams (Williams) who stated that he registered the vehicle on the basis of Mr Spence’s certification; that his cousin had the vehicle for two weeks, bogged it and “damaged the drive line so we had to get a second hand diff and suspension.”[25] The remainder of the statement consisted of a tangled recital of the sale of the unregistered vehicle without a safety certificate and receipt of subsequent infringement notices.
[24]Exhibit 1.
[25]Exhibit 1.
The Applicant contended that there had been no prosecution forthcoming and that it was statute barred under section 52 of the Justices Act 1886. The Applicant stated that the State Penalties Enforcement Registry Notices (SPER)[26] were evidence of Mr Spence’s intention to challenge the infringement notices. The tribunal noted to the parties that these SPER notices carried different Infringement Notice numbers[27] to the one in question in relation to this vehicle.[28]
[26]Exhibit 6: Infringement Notice AO55741367 dated 9 February 2011; Infringement Notices AOO41582640 and AOO4158263X dated 18 March 2011.
[27]The SPER notice dated 18 March 2011 in fact relates to the vehicle Holden Rodeo utility, the subject of Allegation 4 – see Exhibit 10. The SPER notice dated 9 February 2011 relates to the Ford Festiva, the subject of Allegation 3 – see Infringement Notice page 137 Respondent’s Statement Folder.
[28]See footnote 14.
The Respondent stated and the Applicant conceded that there was up to a two year period for commencement of proceedings made available under section 62(4) of the TO(RUM) Act. The Applicant conceded that the tribunal could take into consideration the Infringement Notice[29] which Mr Spence has not yet had to defend in the Magistrates Court.
[29]A5172867 7 at page 116 Respondent’s Statement Folder.
Mr Spence in his oral evidence stated that he had challenged and never paid the Infringement Notice penalty of $500. The Respondent conceded he had no proof of payment but questioned whether there had ever been a challenge.
Mr Spence stated to the tribunal that he had been an approved examiner for 12 to 18 years and he inspected an average of 5,000 motor vehicles each year. He stated that he had had “a few run-ins” with transport inspectors over inspections. He described his process of inspection for the tribunal and said that it took 30 minutes per vehicle including a road test. He is familiar with the COP.
Mr Spence strenuously challenged the photographs of the motor vehicle[30] in relation to allegation 1 and stated that it was not advanced rust merely flaking paint and the photographs had been “blown up.” He said he could remember this farm vehicle and he did not notice any rust. He said that there was flaking paint on the door panel and not near the hinge or locking area of door and this was “acceptable”. He said that he was not allowed to remove doors, door panelling or door moulding on inspection and he speculated that the silver trim on the exterior of the door had been bent back and he stated he was not allowed to do that.
[30] Respondent’s Statement Folder pages 96-106.
Transport Inspector Murphy was sworn in as a witness for the Respondent in relation to the Toyota Corolla of which he stated he had a clear recollection of this motor vehicle and the place of inspection. His experience included being a motor mechanic since 1979 and 10 years work for the NSW Road Transport Authority. His task in Maryborough where he was stationed was to inspect motor vehicles to assess safety and road worthiness. He stated that his office on average dealt with 10 roadworthy complaints per month of which he would carry out one per month. Of the total number per month, most would receive a defect notice. He did not refer to the COP at all times but because he also had done roadworthy inspections for the NRMA where he did about five roadworthy inspections per day he would generally take 30 minutes to carry out an inspection.
The only item Murphy identified as likely not to have been present on 17 July 2010 at Mr Spence’s inspection of the Toyota Corolla was the plastic fuel cap.[31] He conceded that the windscreen wipers might have worked at the initial inspection by Mr Spence.
[31] Number 5 in list of defects.
He classified the defects as advanced rust and was adamant that these items had been present “for years”. He was certain that nothing had been changed in the car in the interim period since Mr Spence’s inspection. Professionally, he would have been able to detect if bolts had been changed or moved because spanner marks would have been there on the bolts: there would be “tell-tale signs” left and “you’d see if work had been done.” If the battery clamps had been removed, he would have detected if this was recently done.
In relation to defect number 4 he had sat on the seat in question, found it was abnormally hard and looked underneath the seat. He could see that the block of wood had been there for a long time and it was “extremely unlikely” it was not present at the original inspection. The block of wood was there so that “your backside was not on floor of motor vehicle”. The front seat bolts bolting the seat to the floor were “finger loose” so that they could be twisted undone with fingers. He had checked bolts and then looked underneath the seat and this way discovered the wood there. He stated that the bolts had not been touched “for a long time” and such bolts, if tightened to manufacturer’s specifications, do “not normally” work their way loose because they sit in the main cabin which is suspended. He would have seen the spanner marks had they been tightened. In his inspection, he would check on anchorage and seat belts and would “pick that up in a half hour inspection.” He said he usually shakes the back of the seat because that told you of the security of the seat and whether there was excessive movement in the seat.
Murphy stated that everything in the COP should be checked. He agreed that items 5, 6 and 7 might occur at any time but he said re the oil leak at item 8 that the leak had been there for some time “12 months or more”: it was detectable as long term because of dust which is attracted to the wet oil and road grime; it would have been leaking visibly onto the ground at the original inspection; the leak was not extremely bad but any oil leak at an inspection is not allowed and the COP required that no oil leak is allowed onto roadway.
Murphy stated that the same reasons applied to item 9. Re item 10, there was movement where there should not have been any movement. In relation to item 11, the problem might have been there for six months with the brake fluid leaking onto the linings. “All bolts had never been touched on that vehicle” because spanner marks would be observable if bolts had been moved.
The motor underneath did not look as though it had been washed. Murphy was adamant in his testimony that the vehicle had no mud underneath and had not been washed. He stated that there would have been mud “everywhere” if the vehicle had been bogged and the washing would not have taken all the mud away. Even if the car had been bogged, this just spins the wheels and this does not “do the diff” or do damage. He detected no mud. Even if the vehicle had been bogged, it had no bearing on the defects in the vehicle. Based on his long experience, he could see that “nothing [was] changed . . . in my mind, no possibility that’s been changed.” No bolts had been touched and they would have had to be moved to “get the diff out”. It was “highly unlikely” and the bolts had “not seen a spanner for years”. Murphy stated that it could be clearly seen that they had not been undone.
In relation to item 12, he stated that the advanced rust must have been present for about five years and was right through the vehicle. The “rust was everywhere” and everything he wrote on the defect notice was of concern. Re item 13, the brake lining on the handbrake would not wear in one month.
The tribunal notes the copy of the Infringement Notice dated 22 October 2010 in the penalty amount of $500.[32]
[32] Respondent’s Statement Folder Page 116.
Discussion
The tribunal notes inconsistencies in Williams’ written statement. For example at point 6 of Mr Spence’s statement he refers to the previous owner of the Toyota as having been charged with issuing an invalid safety certificate.[33] Williams’ statement in fact refers to the vehicle being sold unregistered without a safety certificate; the “original” certificate being in the glove box but invalid and his being charged with “disposing of a vehicle that was registered without a RWC supplied.”
[33] Exhibit 1.
A witness such as Murphy had a high degree of credibility when he expressed his opinion as to the likelihood of the defects occurring in just over a one month period since Mr Spence had signed the safety certificate. The tribunal also notes that the odometer readings showed a difference of 1003 kilometres between the issue of the safety certificate and the issue of the defect notice. Murphy had significant experience as a motor mechanic and in motor vehicle inspections and his evidence was authoritative as to the specific defects in the motor vehicle and the likelihood of their long standing nature, especially in relation to the state of advanced rust.
The Applicant in his submissions conceded that Murphy’s evidence was sound and that the motor vehicle was defective at the time of Murphy’s inspection. Nevertheless he stated that “substantial change” had been made during Williams’ ownership. The Applicant also conceded there was advanced rust which would not pass under the COP but submitted that it was not visible on inspection. The same applied in other areas.
The test it was submitted was whether Mr Spence was a fit and proper person to hold the approvals. An offence of the nature described in this motor vehicle pointed to a lack of skill in missing the rust rather than deliberate wrongdoing by Mr Spence. Similarly with the block of wood under the seat: the omission to discover this on inspection may look negligent but there is a legitimate reason in that the block was not visible. The fact that errors were made by Mr Spence is not enough to cancel his licence. He submitted that there had been insufficient evidence to prosecute Mr Spence.
The tribunal prefers the evidence of Murphy in relation to the absence of mud and to the unlikelihood of the car being washed to that of the statement of Williams. The tribunal also considers that Williams had not made major changes to the car in the brief interim period since the safety inspection. The tribunal considers that ascertaining anchorage of the driver’s seat in a vehicle would form a basic task in a vehicle inspection. In a safety certificate inspection, a person with the professed experience of Mr Spence should have detected problems with the seat and the advanced rust. The tribunal also accepts Murphy’s evidence as to the looseness of bolts.
The tribunal finds on the balance of probabilities that there is cogent evidence provided by Murphy that supports the finding that Mr Spence breached his duties and responsibilities in relation to the inspection of the Toyota Corolla sedan and the issuance of the safety certificate. To issue a safety certificate in these circumstances when it is alleged that Mr Spence did not perform a thorough inspection of the vehicle is a serious breach of his duties and responsibilities as an AIS nominee (proprietor) and approved examiner. The tribunal is satisfied this is a contravention of his conditions of approval and a ground for cancellation of his approvals.
In the absence of further evidence, the tribunal accepts Mr Spence’s assertion that he has not paid the penalty levied in the infringement notice.
Evidence – Allegation 2
Mr Spence, in relation to the Ford Utility Courier claimed he had wanted to fight the Infringement Notice but had been dissuaded by his solicitor. Mr Spence denied that the defects were present but had taken the view in relation to the payment of penalty of $500 that it was “only a commercial decision” to make the payment. “The cost of the ticket was only $500 but the costs of defending the ticket would have run into the tens of thousands of dollars.”[34]
[34] Exhibit 1.
Mr Spence denied that the vehicle was not in a satisfactory condition.[35] “It should also be noted that the defects identified are not specific and are of a nature which would be expected to have broken after use.”[36]
[35] Exhibit 1.
[36] Exhibit 1.
Mr Spence did not dispute that he had paid the penalty imposed under the Infringement Notice in relation to this motor vehicle. He acknowledged that the payment of $500 was “possibly” in relation to the seriousness of the defects.
The Respondent called Wiseman as a witness.[37] He stated that he had been a transport inspector with the Respondent for three and a half years and was a motor mechanic with 30 years experience including 17 years experience as an approved examiner in the inspection of numerous makes and models of motor vehicles to ensure compliance with relevant Queensland vehicle safety legislation. He carried out one or two inspections per month, averaging five to ten in a six month period. Regularly he found vehicles to be not roadworthy. There was “very little” difference between the inspection for a safety certificate and that done by a transport inspector because both were looking at the same components based on the COP.
[37]See also Wiseman’s Statement of Witness Respondent’s Statement Folder pages 93-94.
He stated that he was alerted by a phone call from an RACQ inspector who told him this vehicle needed to be urgently looked at. Wiseman stated he had a clear recollection of the vehicle; place of inspection and of the inspection. It was an inspection triggered by a complaint. In the case of this vehicle the owner wanted the whole vehicle examined because the RACQ inspection had reported full corrosion.[38]
[38]The tribunal notes the sworn statement of the owner which is corroborative of how Wiseman was called to the vehicle: Statement of Witness Glenn Robert Phillip 30 August 2010 Respondent’s Statement Folder pages 86-91.
Wiseman had no knowledge of what items appeared in the RACQ report to the owner so that report played no part in the independent assessment he made. The RACQ inspector was an independent certifier and approved examiner. He also had no knowledge of any dispute between the owner and the dealer. He reported the owner as saying that the vehicle did not “feel good” when he drove it. Mr Wiseman reported that the owner informed him that the vehicle was sitting locked outside a police station in Ipswich since he picked it up and Mr Wiseman did not know if it had been vandalised.
Wiseman stated that the defects in this motor vehicle were so numerous and such substantial ones that the defects for rectification listed in the defect notice were broken into major components. The range of defects corresponded to the COP.
His written statement listed more detailed defects, for example:
a) in relation to item 1: “At the time of inspection I saw heavily corroded brake components and leaking wheel cylinders” with specific reference to photographs on the file;
b) in relation to item 2: “At the time of inspection I saw heavily corroded steering and suspension components” with specific reference to photographs on the file;
c) in relation to item 3: “At the time of inspection I saw heavily corroded chassis (structural) components and body corrosion” with specific reference to photographs on the file.[39]
[39] Statement of Witness 30 August 2010 Respondent’s Statement Folder page 94.
Given the lapse of time of less than one month between Mr Spence’s inspection and that by the transport inspectors, there was insufficient time for the defects to develop and the vehicle had travelled only approximately 800 kilometres which is not a great number of kilometres. The level of work required to bring this motor vehicle up to a required standard was extensive because the vehicle was “not at all roadworthy”. Mr Wiseman stated that it took him, depending on the vehicle, up to one hour to one and a half hours to do a thorough inspection.
Wiseman was shown enlargements of file photographs[40] and stated in response to questioning that not all the defects had been photographed since some component parts cannot be photographed. He gave the example of lighting components where the lights were non-functioning. Cracked lenses would have made them non-compliant with the COP. He stated that the range of defects corresponded with the COP and pointed to the definition of when a vehicle is defective under the Regulations[41]. It was put to Wiseman that surface rust on the brake linings is acceptable and this does not constitute advanced corrosion as described in the COP. He stated that the vehicle had no brakes.
[40]Exhibit 7: enlarged photographs of photographs 26 on 58; 31 on page 61; 27 on page 59; 32 on page 61; 41 on page 66 in Respondent’s Statement Folder.
[41]Vehicle Standards Regulation 2010, section 7(1); Vehicle Standards Regulation 1999, section 13.
Wiseman was adamant that the defects would have been present at the time of Mr Spence’s inspection of the motor vehicle. He stated that the defects were substantial and the vehicle was not safe to “go down the road”. He stated that the classification “advanced rust”[42] fitted the description of the corrosion in the motor vehicle and this advanced rust would have been readily detectable at the time of Mr Spence’s inspection.
[42]AIS Information Sheet No.11 Rust and Corrosion Respondent’s Statement Folder pages 75-80
Neither Mr Spence nor his lawyer had sought particulars in relation to this vehicle. The Infringement Notice was paid.
Discussion
The Applicant conceded there was no dispute that the payment of the $500 amounted to a conviction and this constituted grounds for cancellation. He submitted that Mr Spence made a commercial decision in paying the penalty amount for convenience and to avoid expense. This was insufficient reason to cancel Mr Spence’s licence.
The Applicant urged the tribunal to find that Wiseman was not open to the reasonable acceptance that the defects were open to interpretation in the COP and was not as independent a witness as Murphy or Whitmore. The Applicant stressed that Wiseman’s one and a half hours to do the inspection contrasted unfavourably with Murphy’s 30 minutes.
The Applicant conceded that Mr Spence did sign the safety certificate when the vehicle was defective but this could have been inadvertent, not intentional. His payment of the penalty was acknowledgement of this but insufficient basis to cancel his licence and the infringement was at the lesser end of the scale. The tribunal notes that the Applicant cannot have it both ways: the payment of the penalty was either acknowledgement or it was purely a commercial decision by Mr Spence.
The tribunal prefers the evidence of Wiseman whose detailed list disclosed defects of longstanding significance to the safe operation of this motor vehicle on the road. His opinion was authoritative when he stated that the defects could not have developed in the brief interim period between the two inspections. The tribunal notes that advanced rust to the primary structure of a motor vehicle is not acceptable[43] and the tribunal accepts that this motor vehicle displayed advanced rust and finds it would have been able to be detected on inspection at the time Mr Spence signed the safety certificate.
[43]AIS Information Sheet No.11 Rust and Corrosion Respondent’s Statement Folder pages 75-80.
While Wiseman’s safety inspection time of one to one and a half hours may have been overly conscientious as contrasted with Murphy’s inspection time, nevertheless that tribunal accepts Wiseman’s assessment of this vehicle as requiring extensive repairs and new parts integral to the vehicle and chassis to make the vehicle roadworthy. Wiseman demonstrated that he possessed a good working knowledge of the COP and was thorough in his application of that to his inspection. He had listed generic defects in the defect notice but on examination both in his written statement and in oral testimony, he was able to point to details of specific defects.
The specificity of his evidence provided weight to the finding that this vehicle was defective and unroadworthy at the time of Mr Spence’s inspection.
The tribunal notes that Mr Spence had paid the penalty imposed by the Infringement Notice in relation to this motor vehicle. Any weight that might be accorded by the tribunal to Mr Spence’s motives in paying the penalty amount as opposed to challenging it is outweighed in the case of this motor vehicle, the comprehensive defects and the evidence of Wiseman.
There is a significant public responsibility invested in any person who has AIS authorisation and is an examiner and there is a clear public interest in having only roadworthy cars on our roads.
To issue a safety certificate in these circumstances when it is alleged that Mr Spence did not perform a thorough inspection of the vehicle is a serious breach of his duties and responsibilities of an AIS nominee (proprietor) and approved examiner. The tribunal is satisfied this is a contravention of his conditions of approval and a ground for cancellation of his approvals.
Evidence – Allegation 3
Mr Spence’s statement confirmed he had issued a safety certificate for the vehicle and that in relation to the brake pedal, he had told his assistant to fit the brake pedal but this was not done and so he was found guilty.[44] Mr Spence stated: “My only explanation is that obviously my assistant must not have fitted it when I thought he had. While I admit that this amounts to some slackness on my part, I do not believe that it is intentional conduct and certainly not enough to warrant the taking of my livelihood.”[45]
[44]Exhibit 1.
[45]Exhibit 1 page 2 of Mr Spence’s statement.
The Respondent provided[46] the Transcript of Proceedings Decision dated 1 December 2011 from the Magistrates Court Beenleigh. In that matter Mr Spence was charged under section 19(4)(c) Vehicle Standards Regulation 2010. This subsection provides that an approved examiner must not sign any inspection certificate for a vehicle unless the examiner reasonably considered the vehicle is not defective. The maximum penalty is 40 penalty units. In this matter the prosecution relied on section 7(1)(f) which provides: “the vehicle does not comply with the Code of Practice—Vehicle Inspection Guidelines.”[47]
[46]Exhibit 2.
[47]Exhibit 2 Transcript of Proceedings Decision dated 1 December 2011 Magistrates Court Beenleigh page 2.
A conviction was recorded and Mr Spence was fined the amount of $800.[48]
[48]Exhibit 2 Transcript of Proceedings Decision dated 1 December 2011 Magistrates Court Beenleigh page 11.
The Applicant submitted there had been two particulars before the court and only one was substantiated. It would be unreasonable to penalise Mr Spence on the basis of just one substantiated defect. The Applicant drew attention to the Magistrate’s comment: “Mr Spence, you’ve fallen down . . . it’s more a case of being slack.” It was submitted that this characterised Mr Spence. The defects were minor and easily missed defects. Because Mr Spence is doing five to six safety certificates per day it is not unreasonable that sometimes he gets “slack”.
There was no further evidence provided by the Applicant or the Respondent in relation to Allegation 3.
Discussion
The tribunal notes that in the decision the Magistrate stated:
“These types of offences are a concern to the community, and they are a concern for a matter of safety to all road users, and it’s also a concern for individuals and families when young people such as this are attempting to register a vehicle, they rely on expert people to carry out these duties for them, they act in blind faith.”[49]
[49]Exhibit 2 Transcript of Proceedings Decision dated 1 December 2011 from the Magistrates Court Beenleigh pages 10-11.
The tribunal endorses this statement. The tribunal must also identify the public interest in road safety and the reliance placed by individuals and families on the expert inspection by an approved examiner and AIS so that the vehicle which may be issued with a safety certificate is fit for the purpose of safe road use. Slackness is not an excuse when there is significant public interest involved.
The tribunal notes that the Magistrate in the pre-sentence remarks gave consideration to the question of Mr Spence’s livelihood in his function as examiner and an AIS nominee however considered that a recorded conviction was appropriate.
Evidence – Allegation 4
In an unsworn statement and reference for Mr Spence dated 16 June 2011[50] provided by the Applicant, Brendan and David Houghton (Houghton) stated that they were present at the time of Mr Spence’s inspection of this unregistered motor vehicle at 4 Calliope Street Eagleby because “that is where Mr Marshall’s vehicle was located at that time”.[51] They state that the vehicle was “already jacked up on stands with the wheels removed”. They further state that a dispute developed between the Houghtons and Marshall who made threats until the Houghtons reported the threats to the Beenleigh Police who, it was claimed, cautioned Marshall.
[50] Exhibit 1.
[51] Exhibit 1.
The Applicant provided copies of phone texts[52] which were asserted to show threats and disputes between parties which allegedly had led to Marshall’s revenge in reporting the vehicle to the Respondent.
[52] Exhibit 9 three pages.
Mr Spence’s written statement which made mention of the Holden Rodeo utility[53], claims that there was a dispute involving the owner and that on the basis of being made aware of the dispute and the existence of independent witnesses to the inspection, the prosecution was discontinued. The tribunal notes that in his written statement Mr Spence states: “. . . there was a bitter dispute between the person who bought this car and the person who arranged the safety certificate with me.” [54]
[53] Exhibit 1.
[54] Exhibit 1.
It was not disputed between the parties that there was a prosecution commenced in the Magistrates Court Inala but the prosecution was discontinued by the Respondent. The Respondent was unable to explain the discontinuance of the prosecution.
Mr Spence told the tribunal that there was “nothing wrong with the vehicle when we did an inspection” and at the time of the inspection, there was none of the defects on the car. Mr Spence stated that in testing brakes, his Tapley meter may have had a discrepancy of 10%.
Transport Inspector Whitmore told the tribunal of his inspection of the vehicle, stated that he had a good recollection of the inspection and that it was an owner initiated inspection. His experience was 32 years as a motor mechanic including 26 years as an approved examiner. He confirmed that he had had a conversation with the owner, Marshall who had alleged that the safety certificate for the vehicle had been “handed over the fence”. He did not recall the owner saying that he had done work on the vehicle.
Whitmore stated that it was unlikely that the oil leak had not been present at the time the owner acquired the car and he based this opinion on his experience. Similarly the loose steering wheel grip would have been present and the damage to the structure of the steering wheel. Whitmore stated that all the items on the defect notice were non-compliant with the COP and it was likely that they were all present at the time of inspection. When asked if he had had the manufacturer’s specifications with him at the time of the inspection, Mr Whitmore stated that in the COP, “manufacturer specifications” equated to comparing it against safe use.
Item 5 was in relation to the Engine Transmission section of the COP[55] and in relation to the gear selection, the “motor vehicle was not performing its function”.
[55] Exhibit 5 COP page 33.
The tribunal noted in Whitmore’s written statement[56] among the comprehensive list of defects was the statement that the brakes on a test operated at 55% when 60% was a requisite minimum. The safety certificate dated 30 November 2010 records the service brake test at 75%.[57]
[56] Statement of Witness Respondent’s Statement File pages 154-157.
[57] Exhibit 10.
In relation to this motor vehicle there was the sworn statement of the owner Marshall dated 6 January 2011. Marshall’s statement alleged that he purchased this unregistered vehicle from the then owner Michael Stiller (Stiller) on 29 November 2010 from 52 Finch Street Eagleby. Marshall states that his friend Brendan [Houghton] claimed he could obtain a roadworthy certificate for $99 which Marshall paid. The vehicle was brought to Marshall’s house that day. On 30 November Brendan [Houghton] and his father David Houghton handed “over the fence” to Marshall the safety certificate dated 30 November 2010 and made out to Marshall’s name and address. Marshall states:
“I can categorically state that I have never spoken to anyone with the name of G Spence nor have I ever been to 25 Station Avenue Darra. I can also state that G Spence never came to my address at any time either.”
Marshall went on to state that he had carried out some minor repairs to the vehicle: he replaced the left front damaged panel and degreased and hosed out the engine.[58] On 6 January 2011 he contacted the Respondent. Transport Inspectors Whitmore and Ifopo noted the difference in odometer readings between the safety certificate[59] and in the vehicle itself.[60] The discrepancy was 498 kilometres. Marshall stated that the vehicle had not left his yard.
[58] Page 159.
[59] Exhibit 10: 408226 – the final numeral is unclear: 408226 or 408221.
[60] Exhibit 8: Defect Notice dated 7 January 2011: 408724.
Stiller, the previous owner of the vehicle, states that as a qualified mechanic of over 20 years, the unregistered vehicle he sold from his address at 52 Finch Street Eagleby on 29 November 2010 was unroadworthy; that after the sale, the same day, he loaded the vehicle onto his tow truck and delivered it to Marshall’s driveway at 1 Hughes Street Eagleby. [61]
[61]Statement of Witness dated 7 January 2011, Respondent’s Statement Folder page 161.
Discussion
The Applicant submitted that Marshall made substantial changes to the motor vehicle although Marshall’s statement describes changes he made as “minor”.[62]
[62] Statement of Witness Respondent’s Statement Folder page 159.
There is an obvious discrepancy in the statement provided by the Houghtons[63] where they state that the place of inspection was 4 Calliope Street Eagleby yet the previous owner Stiller states that he towed the vehicle from his address in Finch Street Eagleby to the driveway of the new owner Marshall at 1 Hughes St Eagleby on 29 November 2010, the same day as the sale of the vehicle.[64] The tribunal notes that the safety certificate dated 30 November 2010 signed by Mr Spence is made out to Marshall at his address at 1 Hughes Street Eagleby. The tribunal notes that Mr Spence has ticked “road test” in the safety certificate for this vehicle but made no mention in his evidence to the tribunal of any additional time it would have taken if the vehicle had been jacked up with wheels removed[65] before a road test might have been possible. The tribunal notes Mr Spence’s statement and his use of the verb “arranged” when he refers to “the person who arranged the safety certificate with me”[66] and considers that this is a likely corroboration of the arrangement as Marshall describes it in his statement.
[63] Exhibit 1.
[64] Statement of Witness Respondent’s Statement Folder page 161.
[65] Exhibit 1.
[66] Exhibit 1.
While the tribunal does not place undue reliance on the evidence of Marshall’s statement, the truth of which is disputed and challenged by the Applicant, nevertheless, his statement is essentially corroborated by the statement from Stiller[67] as to time and place. Although Marshall gave no oral testimony before the tribunal, the “evidence” provided by the Applicant of any alleged dispute[68] was scant and incoherent. Its relevance is negligible.
[67] Statement of Witness Respondent’s Statement Folder page 161.
[68] Exhibit 9.
The tribunal prefers the evidence of Whitmore as to the significant defects that were in the vehicle and notes that this evidence is also corroborated by the previous owner Stiller, a mechanic of 20 years experience, who considered the vehicle unroadworthy without repairs.
[100]The tribunal noted in Whitmore’s written statement[69] among the comprehensive list of defects was the statement that the brakes on a test operated at 55% when 60% was a requisite minimum. The safety certificate dated 30 November 2010 records the service brake test at 75%.[70] Mr Spence had stated the possible discrepancy in his Tapley meter as 10%. The actual discrepancy indicates unsafe function of the brakes. Indeed, across all the vehicles in this matter, the figures of choice employed by Mr Spence in relation to the brakes appear to be 75% or 76%.
[69] Statement of Witness Respondent’s Statement File pages 154-157.
[70] Exhibit 10.
[101]The tribunal considers that on the balance of probabilities, it is likely that Mr Spence issued a safety certificate without examining this motor vehicle. In arriving at this conclusion, the tribunal relies on the evidence of Whitmore whose statement details serious defects[71] and the statements provided by Marshall and Stiller. The tribunal is unable to place any reliance on the contradictory evidence of the Houghtons or on any alleged dispute. The tribunal is satisfied that Mr Spence has signed and issued a safety certificate for this vehicle when it was defective and, on the balance of probabilities, made a statement that is false or misleading in relation to this vehicle.
[71] Statement of Witness Respondent’s Statement Folder pages 154-157.
[102]In summary, the tribunal notes that the evidence provided by the Applicant in relation to the four motor vehicles was scant. There were brief statements provided[72] but no witnesses other than Mr Spence were made available for presentation of evidence and cross-examination for any assessment of credibility in relation to claims made. This puts the tribunal at a serious disadvantage.
[72] Exhibit 1.
[103]Mr Spence’s evidence either in written or oral form generally did not address, with the exception of the vehicle the Toyota Corolla sedan, the subject of allegation 1 where he emphatically rejected the rust as being advanced, the specific itemised defects in the vehicles. Mr Spence made “ambit claims” that the defects were not present at the times of his inspections.
[104]The transport inspectors provided both written statements and were available as witnesses so that their evidence could be assessed. The tribunal considers that significant weight can be accorded to the detailed evidence given by them, the defect notices with the lengthy list of defects, the infringement notices, penalties paid and the conviction.
Legislation
[105]Section 8 Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Accreditation and Other Provisions) Regulation 2005 provides for statutory conditions to be imposed on the appointment of approved examiners. These conditions are detailed in Schedule 1 and paragraph 1 states:
“An accredited person who is an approved examiner—
(a) must not contravene the Act; and
(b) must not contravene the Code of Practice—Vehicle Inspection Guidelines mentioned in the Vehicle Standards and Safety Regulation, section 13(e).”
[106]Mr Spence is accredited as an approved examiner.
[107]Section 18(1)(b) of the TO(RUM) Act provides that a contravention of a condition of an approval is a ground for amending, suspending or cancelling an approval.
[108]Section 18(1)(e) of the TO(RUM) Act provides that a conviction for an offence against the Act is a ground for amending, suspending or cancelling approvals as an AIS nominee (proprietor) and as an approved examiner. Schedule 4 of the TO(RUM) Act provides:
“convicting a person includes—
(a) a court finding the person guilty, or accepting the person’s plea of guilty, whether or not a conviction is recorded; and
(b) the person paying a penalty under the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999.”
[109]In relation to the Ford Festiva, Mr Spence has had a conviction recorded against him and paid a penalty amount.[73] Based on the evidence before it, the tribunal considers that it is appropriate to cancel Mr Spence’s approvals.
[73] Allegation 3.
[110]In relation to the Ford Courier utility[74] Mr Spence paid the penalty enforced by the relevant infringement notice. Based on the evidence before it, the tribunal considers it is appropriate to cancel Mr Spence’s approvals.
[74] Allegation 2.
[111]Section 18(1) of the Vehicle Standards Regulation 2010 provides that an approved examiner must be satisfied about the identity of the vehicle.[75] Section 19 of the Vehicle Standards Regulation 2010 relevantly provides in relation to inspections by approved examiners for inspection certificate:
[75] Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.
(4) An approved examiner must not sign an inspection certificate for a vehicle unless –
(a) the examiner is satisfied under section 18 about the identity of the vehicle; and
(b) the examiner has carried out a thorough inspection of the vehicle; and
(c) the examiner reasonably considers the vehicle is not defective; and
Maximum penalty – 40 penalty units.[112]In relation to the Holden Rodeo utility[76], based on the evidence before it, the tribunal is satisfied that Mr Spence has contravened the requirement of section 19(4) of the Vehicle Standards Regulation 2010.
[76] Allegation 4.
[113]Mr Spence has contravened section 18(1)(b) of the TO(RUM) Act 1995.[77]
[77]See also in relation to Approved Inspection Station (AIS) section 40A and Schedule 3A statutory conditions of AIS approval in the Vehicle Standards Regulation 1999 and in Part 4A section 100A in relation to AIS approvals; section 100I statutory conditions; section 100J for discretionary conditions on approvals and Schedule 5A statutory conditions of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management — Accreditation and Other Provisions) Regulation 2005 (Accreditation Regulation) (applicable after 1 September 2010). These include conditions that an approval holder AIS nominee (proprietor) must not contravene the Act and the COP, and that an AIS nominee (proprietor) must not contravene the Act or permit or allow an approved examiner to contravene the Act. The reference to the Act includes a Regulation made under the Act namely the Vehicle Standards Regulation 1999 and the Vehicle Standards Regulation 2010.
[114]Section 7(1) of the Vehicle Standards Regulation 2010 contains a comprehensive definition of when a vehicle is defective.[78] It provides where relevant:
[78] Section 13 of the Vehicle Standards Regulation 1999 is similar.
(1) A vehicle is defective if—
(a) a part of the vehicle—
(i) does not comply with the requirements specified in the vehicle standards; or
(ii) does not perform its intended function; or
(iii) has deteriorated to an extent that it can not be reasonably relied on to perform its intended function; or . . .
(e) the vehicle is unsafe; or
(f) the vehicle does not comply with the Code of Practice—Vehicle Inspection Guidelines (the vehicle inspection code of practice).
[115]The COP Vehicle Inspection Guidelines is a document which is the manual employed by AIS personnel and transport inspectors. The COP is a “user friendly” 88 page document[79] based on section 7[80].
[79] Exhibit 5.
[80] It is also based on section 13 Vehicle Standards Regulation 1999.
[116]The tribunal notes that under section 17(2)(b) Vehicle Standards Regulation 1999 an approved examiner provides a safety certificate after he “reasonably considers the vehicle is not defective”. This is only after a “full inspection.”[81] Section s 19(4)(c) of the Vehicle Standards Regulation 2010 requires that an approved examiner provides a safety certificate if he “reasonably considers” the vehicle is not defective after a “thorough inspection”[82]. The act of reasonably considering should only be reached after a “full” inspection and a “thorough” inspection. The tribunal is satisfied that Mr Spence’s inspections were neither full nor thorough in conformity with the requirements of section 7 and the COP.
[81] Section17(2)(b) Vehicle Standards Regulation 1999.
[82] Section 19(4)(b) Vehicle Standards Regulation 2010.
[117]In relation to the Toyota Corolla sedan[83] the tribunal finds that Mr Spence has signed a safety certificate when the car had significant defects and without appropriate regard for the conditions required under section 17 Vehicle Standards Regulation 1999.
[83] Allegation 1.
[118]The tribunal finds that the grounds for cancelling Mr Spence’s approvals as an approved examiner and as an AIS Nominee under section 18 of the TO(RUM) Act are established.
Order
[119]Pursuant to section 24(1)(a) of the QCAT Act, upon review of the reviewable decision, the reviewed decision is confirmed.
Other matter
[120]The approval dated 15 February 2011 in response to the application for replacement Mobile Inspection Unit – Approved Inspection Station No. 8403 is subsidiary to the approvals the subject of the above decision. Consequent upon the cancellations as an approved examiner and as AIS nominee, the approval dated 15 February 2011 is also cancelled.
0
5
7