APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT A Wozniak, solicitor
ORDERS:
The decision of the Director General, Department of Transport, suspending Mr. Sterjovski’s authority, is affirmed.
Background 1 These proceedings relate to a determination made by the Director General, Department of Transport (“the Department”) to suspend the Taxi Driver Authority number AK8769 held by Mr. Krste Sterjovski (“Mr. Sterjovski”). In making the determination the Department relied on advice received from the New South Wales Police Service that a Warrant had been issued for Mr. Sterjovski’s arrest as a result of an alleged assault which occurred on 28 June 2001, and on a complaint received by the Department that Mr. Sterjovski had become abusive and had physically assaulted a passenger.
2 Mr. Sterjovski is a taxi driver. He is 46 years of age, has dependants and has no other source of income. He has a long career as a taxi driver and is understandably concerned to ensure that the decision by the Department to suspend his authority is the correct and preferable one having regard to all the relevant material and law.
3 By letter dated 20 November 2001 the Department advised Mr. Sterjovski that it had determined to suspend his authority.
4 The Statement of Reasons advised that the Department has a continuing obligation under the Passenger Transport Act1990 (“the Act”) to ensure only fit and proper persons drive public passenger vehicles. The fact that the behaviour that led to the alleged assault and the warrant for Mr. Sterjovski’s arrest occurred as a result of Mr. Sterjovski’s employment as a taxi driver may mean that Mr. Sterjovski does not have sufficient responsibility to drive a taxi-cab in accordance with law and custom. Having regard to the matters raised, and considering the interests and safety of the travelling public, the Department could no longer attest that Mr. Sterjovski is considered to meet the required standards for authorisation as a taxi-cab driver.
5 Mr. Sterjovski applied for internal review of the Department’s decision, and by letter dated 7 December 2001 the Department advised Mr. Sterjovski that the initial decision to suspend his authority was confirmed on review.
6 The Department advised that it considered it likely that a reasonable member of the travelling public would regard the offence of which…
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.
Continue reading Sterjovski v Director-General, Department of Transport
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Sterjovski v Director-General, Department of Transport [2002] NSWADT 10
Case
[2002] NSWADT 10
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Sterjovski v Director-General, Department of Transport, the High Court of Australia was tasked with deciding the validity of the suspension of Mr. Sterjovski’s authority as a transport operator. The dispute arose from an administrative decision made by the Director-General, Department of Transport, who suspended Mr. Sterjovski's authority following allegations of non-compliance with transport regulations. Mr. Sterjovski challenged the decision, arguing that it was unlawful and beyond the powers conferred to the Director-General.
The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of statutory provisions governing the powers of the Director-General and the principles of natural justice. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the Director-General had the authority to suspend Mr. Sterjovski's transport authority without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard, and whether the decision complied with the principles of procedural fairness. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the Director-General’s decision was supported by proper reasons and whether it was based on relevant considerations.
The court held that the Director-General had the statutory authority to suspend Mr. Sterjovski’s transport authority in cases of alleged non-compliance, and that the decision-making process complied with the principles of natural justice. The court found that the Director-General’s decision was supported by proper reasons and was based on relevant considerations. The court also noted that the circumstances of the case justified the immediate suspension without prior notice, given the potential risk to public safety. Consequently, the decision to affirm the Director-General’s suspension of Mr. Sterjovski’s authority was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
The decision of the Director General, Department of Transport, suspending Mr. Sterjovski’s authority, is affirmed.