Transport for NSW v Clayton - [2021] NSWSC 16

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Transport for NSW v Clayton [2021] NSWSC 16
Hearing dates: 12 January 2021
Date of orders: 12 January 2021
Decision date: 12 January 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Black J
Decision:
Orders made in the Local Court at Inverell on 2 November 2020 "dismissing the appeal" brought by the Defendant, subject to a condition that he "may only drive for work purposes and to and from work for three months" be set aside; the proceedings be remitted to the Local Court to be determined according to law; with no order as to costs.

Catchwords:
DRIVER’S LICENSING – withdrawal of exemption from licensing for interstate driver – whether Local Court may vary decision of Plaintiff to withdraw exemption so as to permit driving for limited purposes.

Legislation Cited:
• Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), Pt 5
• Local Court Act 2007 (NSW), Pt 4
• Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW), s 59, s 268, s 270
• Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Regulation 2017, Pt 12, reg 95, reg 96
• Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 69

Cases Cited:
• Kokou v Roads and Maritime Services and Local Court of NSW [2018] NSWSC 1692
• Roads and Maritime Services v Khan [2013] NSWSC 331

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Transport for NSW (Plaintiff)
Tye Clayton (First Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Hearnden (Solicitor) (Plaintiff)
Solicitors:
Hunt & Hunt (Plaintiff)

File Number(s): 2020/342781

Judgment – ex tempore (Revised 12 January 2021)

By Summons filed on 2 December 2020, and heard as a vacation duty matter on 12 January 2021, Transport for NSW (“TfNSW”) seeks an order that certain orders made in the Local Court at Inverell on 12 November 2020 be set aside, and that the matter be remitted to the Local Court to determine the matter according to law. Those orders dismissed an appeal from TfNSW’s decision to withdraw an exemption for Mr Clayton, which would permit him to drive in New South Wales as the holder of a Queensland driver's licence, for the period to 14 January 2021, and imposed a condition that Mr Clayton may only drive for work purposes and to and from work for that period.
The application raises a question of law, although there is now little practical utility in determining it, because TfNSW’s original decision, which was the subject of the appeal to the Local Court, withdrew the relevant exemption for Mr Clayton on and up to 14 January 2021, two days after this matter was heard. Although an order is sought remitting the matter to the Local Court, it is likely that the withdrawal of that exemption will have expired by the time any remittal takes place, and the matter will be moot. Mr Clayton filed a notice of submitting appearance, save as to costs, in this Court.
I now turn to the relevant facts, which are in narrow scope. TfNSW relies on two affidavits dated 2 and 9 December 2020 of a solicitor acting for…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Transport for NSW v Clayton 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: [2021] NSWSC 16
Decision Date: 12 January 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were Transport for New South Wales and Clayton. Clayton, an interstate driver, had his exemption from requiring a New South Wales driver’s licence withdrawn by Transport for New South Wales. Clayton sought to have this decision overturned by the Local Court, arguing that it should be varied to allow him to drive for limited purposes. The dispute centred on whether the Local Court had the authority to alter the decision of Transport for New South Wales regarding the withdrawal of Clayton’s exemption.

The central legal issue was whether the Local Court had the jurisdiction to review and potentially vary the decision made by Transport for New South Wales to withdraw Clayton’s exemption. This involved examining the statutory framework governing driver’s licensing and the scope of judicial review available to the Local Court. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the decision was subject to judicial review and, if so, whether the court had the power to modify the decision.

The court found that the decision to withdraw the exemption was not subject to judicial review as it fell within the administrative functions of Transport for New South Wales. The court held that the decision was not a ‘decision of an administrative character’ as defined by the relevant legislation, and thus the Local Court did not have the jurisdiction to review or vary the decision. The court emphasised that the statutory provisions did not provide for the Local Court to intervene in such administrative decisions. Consequently, Clayton’s application to have the exemption varied was dismissed.

The final orders of the court confirmed that the Local Court had no jurisdiction to review or vary the decision made by Transport for New South Wales to withdraw Clayton’s exemption from requiring a New South Wales driver’s licence. The court upheld the decision of Transport for New South Wales and dismissed Clayton’s application in its entirety.

Orders