Zhang v Transport for NSW

Link copied
Case Copied 9 min read

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:

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997

Cases Cited:

Foxman v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2022] NSWCATAD 13

White v Sutherland Shire Council [2019] NSWCATAD 100

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  1. 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…

CaseChat AU logo

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
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
[2022] NSWCATAD 248
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zhang sought a review of a decision made by Transport for New South Wales regarding his application for a taxi licence. The dispute was brought before the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 and was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether it had jurisdiction to review the decision of Transport for NSW. Zhang argued that the decision had been made under the authority of the Transport Administration Act 1996, and therefore, the court had the requisite jurisdiction.

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.