Wayne Alan Richards v Starfingers (Wholesale) Pty Ltd

Wayne Alan Richards (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision made by Starfingers (Wholesale) Pty Ltd (the respondent) to refuse his application for a licence to operate a mobile food van. The applicant had applied for a licence to operate a mobile food van selling hot dogs and other fast food items from a specific location in the Sydney CBD. The respondent, a local council, refused the application on the grounds that the proposed location was already adequately serviced by existing food vendors and that the operation of a mobile food van would create traffic congestion and parking issues. The applicant appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent's decision to refuse the licence was affected by an error of law, specifically whether the respondent had taken into account irrelevant considerations and failed to take into account relevant considerations when making its determination. The applicant argued that the respondent had improperly considered the existing market saturation and potential traffic congestion, which were not grounds for refusal under the relevant legislation. Conversely, the respondent contended that these factors were legitimate considerations in assessing the impact of a new mobile food van on the local amenity and public interest.

The Court found that the respondent had erred in law by taking into account irrelevant considerations. The legislation governing the licensing of mobile food vans did not permit refusal based on market saturation or general concerns about traffic congestion unless those concerns were specifically linked to the applicant's proposed operation and its impact on public safety or access. The Court held that the respondent had failed to demonstrate how the applicant's specific proposal would exacerbate existing traffic issues or negatively impact public safety, and had instead relied on generalised concerns. The Court also noted that the respondent had failed to adequately consider the applicant's evidence regarding the demand for his specific food offerings and his proposed operational plan.

Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the respondent's decision to refuse the licence and remitted the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration according to law.