Young v Roads and Maritime Services [2013] NSWADT 216

Young v Roads and Maritime Services [2013] NSWADT 216

The Tribunal confirmed the refusal because Mr Young had not provided written council approval to keep the four buses required for the proposed service at the nominated premises and had not proved that he successfully completed the approved operator training course required by RMS under clause 9 of the Passenger Transport Regulation 2007. His evidence also showed that he had provided carriage for consideration by driving hired buses for hirers without accreditation, although the Tribunal was not persuaded that this alone showed insufficient understanding to be accredited.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of a Decision Refusing Bus Operator Accreditation / Administrative Decisions Tribunal Review After Internal Review Confirmed Refusal
Outcome
Decision confirmed; accreditation refused.
Legal Topics
['bus Operator Accreditation' 'public Passenger Transport Service' 'competence and Training Requirements' 'council Approval for Bus Storage' 'unaccredited Passenger Transport Service']
['administrative Law' 'transport Law'] ['bus Operator Accreditation' 'public Passenger Transport Service' 'competence and Training Requirements' 'council Approval for Bus Storage' 'unaccredited Passenger Transport Service']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Review of a Decision Refusing Bus Operator Accreditation / Administrative Decisions Tribunal Review After Internal Review Confirmed Refusal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Young had provided written council approval to keep the four buses required for the service at the nominated premises as required by clause 12 of the Passenger Transport Regulation 2007.' 'Whether Mr Young had proved that he undertook and successfully completed an approved bus operator training course as required by RMS under clause 9 of the Passenger Transport Regulation 2007.' 'Whether Mr Young had the necessary knowledge and competence to be accredited as a bus operator.' "Whether Mr Young's conduct in driving hired buses for hirers amounted to carrying on a public passenger service without accreditation."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal confirmed the refusal because Mr Young had not provided written council approval to keep the four buses required for the proposed service at the nominated premises and had not proved that he successfully completed the approved operator training course required by RMS under clause 9 of the Passenger Transport Regulation 2007. His evidence also showed that he had provided carriage for consideration by driving hired buses for hirers without accreditation, although the Tribunal was not persuaded that this alone showed insufficient understanding to be accredited.

Court Disposition

Decision confirmed; accreditation refused.

Orders

  • ['I confirm the decision to refuse Mr Young accreditation to operate a passenger transport service.']