Ullah vs Roads and Maritime Services

Case [2014] NSWCATAD 71


NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ullah vs Roads and Maritime Services [2014] NSWCATAD 71
Hearing dates:22nd April 2014 and 7 May 2014
Decision date: 28 May 2014
Jurisdiction:Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: A Scahill, Senior Member
Decision:

The decision to cancel the Applicant's authority to drive a taxi-cab is affirmed.

Catchwords: fit and proper person" false statutory declarations"
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Evidence Act 1995 NSW
HYPERLINK " Oaths Act 1900
HYPERLINK " Passenger Transport Act 1990
HYPERLINK " Passenger Transport Regulation 2007
Cases Cited: Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond HYPERLINK " \o "View Case" [1990] HCA 33; HYPERLINK " \o "View LawCiteRecord" (1990) 170 CLR 321 D
Parvez v. Roads and Maritime Services [2014] NSWCATOD 13
Pillai v Messiter [No.2] (1989) 16 NSWLR 197
R v Einfeld HYPERLINK " \o "View Case" [2009] NSWSC 119
Saadieh v Director-General, Department of Transport HYPERLINK " \o "View Case" [1999] NSWADT 68
Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board [1979] 22 SASR 70rake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs HYPERLINK " \o "View LawCiteRecord" (1979) 46 FLR 409
Hughes & Vale Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales [1955] HCA 28; (1955) 93 CLR 127
Lal v Director-General, Department of Transport HYPERLINK " \o "View Case" [2001] NSWADT 74
Loye -v- Director General, Department of Transport [2000] NSWADT 145
Miah v Roads and Maritime Services HYPERLINK " \o "View Case" [2013] NSWADT 264
Naveed v Roads and Maritime Services [2014] NSWCATOD 4
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Mujib Ullah (Applicant in person)
Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)
Representation: M Ullah (Applicant in person)
Smythe Wozniak (Respondent)
File Number(s):1420097

reasons for decision

Background

  1. The Applicant Mr Ullah is seeking review of a decision by the Respondent on 24th December 2013 to cancel his taxi-cab driver authority.

  1. Mr Ullah was born in Bangladesh. He came to Australia and undertook a PhD in Agricultural Research Economics at University of New England. He first obtained a New South Wales taxicab driver authority number GO 2599 in 2002.

Show cause letter

  1. By letter dated 17th October 2013 the Respondent Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) wrote to Mr Ullah asking him to show cause as to why his driver authority should not be cancelled. The reasons provided were that Mr Ullah had been convicted of swearing 4 false statutory declarations attributing responsibility for 4 driving offences he had committed while driving a cab to other people.

  1. Accordingly the RMS considered that the reliance on the 4 false statutory declarations, Mr Ullah's convictions before the Local Court for swearing these false declarations and the 4 traffic offences raised grave doubts about Mr Ullah's aptitude to drive the vehicle, his responsibility and his fitness and propriety. These are qualities in an Applicant to which the Respondent must attest prior to granting a taxi-cab authority. The Respondent also has the power to cancel a taxi driver's authority should…

Continue reading Ullah vs Roads and Maritime Services

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ullah vs Roads and Maritime Services [2014] NSWCATAD 71
Case
[2014] NSWCATAD 71
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ullah versus Roads and Maritime Services concerned the cancellation of the Applicant's taxi-driving authority, following allegations of providing false statutory declarations. The matter was brought before the court, which was tasked with determining the validity of the decision made by the Roads and Maritime Services to revoke the Applicant's authorisation.

The court was required to examine whether the decision to cancel the Applicant's taxi-driving authority was lawful, reasonable, and justified. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Applicant was a "fit and proper person" to hold a taxi-driving authority, and whether the decision to revoke his authority was based on reliable evidence, such as the alleged false statutory declarations. The court also had to consider the proportionality of the penalty imposed, and whether the Applicant had an opportunity to be heard before the decision was made.

The court found that the decision to cancel the Applicant's authority was justified and proportionate, given the seriousness of the allegations against him. The court held that the evidence of the false statutory declarations was reliable and sufficient to support the decision to revoke the Applicant's authority. The court also found that the Applicant had been given an adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations, and that the penalty imposed was not excessive. The Applicant's argument that the decision was flawed due to procedural irregularities was rejected by the court, which held that any errors did not affect the outcome of the case.

The decision to cancel the Applicant's authority to drive a taxi-cab is affirmed. The Applicant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the proceeding are awarded to the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision to cancel the Applicant's authority to drive a taxi-cab 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.