Martin -v- General, Manager, WorkCover Authority [2002] NSWADT 37

Martin -v- General, Manager, WorkCover Authority [2002] NSWADT 37

Clause 12 of the Dangerous Goods (General) Regulation 1999 is directed to the replacement of permits or licences that have been lost, stolen, destroyed or defaced. Its subject matter and purpose are distinct from the suspension or cancellation powers in Clause 73 of the Regulation and ss 28 and 28A of the Dangerous Goods Act 1975. Those provisions imply a limitation on the considerations WorkCover may take into account under Clause 12, so WorkCover could only consider matters relevant to whether the card had been lost, stolen, destroyed or defaced. Because Mr Martin had lost his card and the permit remained in force, the correct and preferable decision was to replace the card.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Application Concerning Refusal of Replacement Explosives User's Permit Card / Principal Matter
Outcome
The respondent's decision was set aside and substituted with a decision requiring the respondent to provide the applicant with a replacement Explosives User's Permit card.
Legal Topics
["explosives User's Permit" 'replacement Permit' 'statutory Interpretation' 'relevant and Irrelevant Considerations' 'administrative Review']
['administrative Law' 'dangerous Goods Regulation'] ["explosives User's Permit" 'replacement Permit' 'statutory Interpretation' 'relevant and Irrelevant Considerations' 'administrative Review']

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 Concerning Refusal of Replacement Explosives User's Permit Card / Principal Matter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent made the correct and preferable decision in refusing Mr Martin's application for a replacement Explosives User's Permit card." 'Whether, under Clause 12 of the Dangerous Goods (General) Regulation 1999, WorkCover could consider competence, trustworthiness or fitness matters relevant to suspension or cancellation when deciding whether to issue a replacement card for a lost permit.']

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 12 of the Dangerous Goods (General) Regulation 1999 is directed to the replacement of permits or licences that have been lost, stolen, destroyed or defaced. Its subject matter and purpose are distinct from the suspension or cancellation powers in Clause 73 of the Regulation and ss 28 and 28A of the Dangerous Goods Act 1975. Those provisions imply a limitation on the considerations WorkCover may take into account under Clause 12, so WorkCover could only consider matters relevant to whether the card had been lost, stolen, destroyed or defaced. Because Mr Martin had lost his card and the permit remained in force, the correct and preferable decision was to replace the card.

Court Disposition

The respondent's decision was set aside and substituted with a decision requiring the respondent to provide the applicant with a replacement Explosives User's Permit card.

Orders

  • ['The decision of the respondent is set aside.' "In substitution for that decision the respondent is to provide the applicant with a replacement Explosives User's Permit card."]