Khan v Roads and Maritime Services [2018] NSWCATOD 128

Khan v Roads and Maritime Services [2018] NSWCATOD 128

The Tribunal affirmed the refusal because, even if the original application process was alleged to be defective, the proceeding was merits review and the Tribunal had to make the correct and preferable decision. On the evidence, the applicant's long and continuing traffic infringement record, five licence suspensions, recent accumulation of demerit points, and misleading negative answer to a clear question about licence suspensions meant the Tribunal could not attest that he was in all respects a fit and proper person to be the driver of a public passenger vehicle or that he had sufficient responsibility to drive such a vehicle in accordance with law and custom. The severe consequences...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Administrative Review of Refusal to Grant an Authority to Drive a Bus or Tourist Vehicle Under the Passenger Transport Act 1990 (nsw) / Merits Review in the Occupational Division; Decision Under Review Affirmed
Outcome
Decision under review affirmed.
Legal Topics
['bus Driver Authority' 'fit and Proper Person' 'good Repute' 'driving Record' 'misleading Statement in Application' 'consequences Under Point to Point Transport Regulation']
['administrative Law' 'passenger Transport' 'occupational Licensing'] ['bus Driver Authority' 'fit and Proper Person' 'good Repute' 'driving Record' 'misleading Statement in Application' 'consequences Under Point to Point Transport Regulation']

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 Administrative Review of Refusal to Grant an Authority to Drive a Bus or Tourist Vehicle Under the Passenger Transport Act 1990 (nsw) / Merits Review in the Occupational Division; Decision Under Review Affirmed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review the refusal if the original application or decision was alleged to be invalid or a nullity.' 'Whether the applicant was of good repute and in all other respects a fit and proper person to be the driver of a public passenger vehicle.' 'Whether the applicant had sufficient responsibility to drive a public passenger vehicle in accordance with law and custom.' "Whether the applicant's traffic infringement and suspension record, and failure to disclose licence suspensions in the application, justified refusal of the bus driver authority." 'Whether consequences under cl 25(2) of the Point to Point Transport (Taxis and Hire Vehicles) Regulation 2017 could affect the correct and preferable decision.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal affirmed the refusal because, even if the original application process was alleged to be defective, the proceeding was merits review and the Tribunal had to make the correct and preferable decision. On the evidence, the applicant's long and continuing traffic infringement record, five licence suspensions, recent accumulation of demerit points, and misleading negative answer to a clear question about licence suspensions meant the Tribunal could not attest that he was in all respects a fit and proper person to be the driver of a public passenger vehicle or that he had sufficient responsibility to drive such a vehicle in accordance with law and custom. The severe consequences...

Court Disposition

Decision under review affirmed.

Orders

  • ['Decision under review affirmed.']