Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Zhang v Transport for NSW [2022] NSWCATAD 248 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 25 July 2022 Decision date: 25 July 2022 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: S Montgomery, Senior Member Decision: The Application is dismissed.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Jurisdiction — no identified enabling legislation – dismissal
Legislation Cited: Cases Cited: Foxman v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2022] NSWCATAD 13
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Guanbo Zhang (Applicant)
Transport for NSW (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Applicant (Self-represented)
Transport for NSW Legal (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/00164532 Publication restriction: Nil
Reasons for Decision
Introduction
-
The Applicant, Mr Guanbo Zhang has applied to the Tribunal for review of a decision by the Respondent, Transport for NSW. The Respondent’s decision was to require the Applicant to enter the NSW Mandatory Alcohol Interlock Program.
-
The decision is stated to have been made on the basis that the Applicant had been convicted of an alcohol related driving offence in Victoria.
-
The Applicant seeks to have the decision set aside on the basis that the Victorian Magistrate court order had not made any decision or order in regard to any interlock program.
Background
-
The solicitor for the Respondent, Mr O’Dwyer provided written submissions in which he set out the following background:
The Applicant is currently disqualified from holding a drivers licence.
On 2 May 2022 the Applicant, the holder of a NSW driver licence, was found guilty of an offence under s 49(1)(f) of the Road Safety Act 1986 (VIC) (the RSA) and was disqualified from driving in the State of Victoria for a period of eleven (11) months. This disqualification applies equally to his NSW driver licence pursuant to section 207(2) of the Road Transport Act 2013 (the RTA).
The imposition of an alcohol interlock condition upon re-application for a licence following a disqualification offence is conferred under s 50AAA(1)(b) of the RSA. Schedule IB of the RSA provides that a s 49(1)(f) offence is an offence which holds a mandatory alcohol interlock condition for a minimum period of six (6) months.
On 29 May 2022, VicRoads (the Victorian driver licensing authority) issued a letter to the Applicant stating that, due to the Applicant’s drink-driving or alcohol related offence, the Applicant is required to install a VicRoads approved alcohol interlock in any vehicle the Applicant drives. …
In anticipation of the Applicant being sent that letter from VicRoads, and given the Applicant had previously been the holder of a NSW driver licence with an address in NSW, on 18 May 2022 the Respondent issued a letter to the Applicant (the Respondent’s letter) stating that as “[the Applicant was] convicted of an alcohol related driving offence on 02/05/2022 in Victoria and as a result [the Applicant] is required to participate in the NSW Mandatory Alcohol Interlock Program”. ...
The Applicant is required to…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Zhang v Transport for NSW 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2022] NSWCATAD 248
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court held that it did not have jurisdiction to review the decision as there was no identified enabling legislation that conferred such jurisdiction. The court noted that the Transport Administration Act 1996 did not explicitly provide for judicial review of the decisions made by Transport for NSW in relation to taxi licences. The court found that without a clear statutory basis for review, it was without power to entertain the application.
Consequently, the court dismissed Zhang's application for judicial review. The court found that there was no legal basis upon which it could review the decision of Transport for NSW. As a result, Zhang's application was dismissed in its entirety, and no further orders were made.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Application is dismissed.
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.