Oliveri v Dept Transport [2001] NSWSC 45

Oliveri v Dept Transport [2001] NSWSC 45

The delegate's s.24 determination was invalid because it was made for the primary ulterior purpose of enabling the Government to competitively tender the LPT route and obtain better financial value, rather than for the statutory purpose of varying the plaintiff's renewed contract to improve transport services in the relevant public interest. The determination and proposed renewal were also uncertain because the draft contract did not state with certainty when or how the LPT excision would take effect, despite the letter contemplating a future unspecified date. Section 22, not s.24, was the proper mechanism for additional services such as the LPT, and s.28 did not provide an adequate...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Equity Division, Commercial List Proceeding by Summons Seeking Declaratory and Consequential Relief Concerning a Commercial Bus Service Contract and a Determination Under the Passenger Transport Act 1990 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff succeeded; declarations and order made, and defendants ordered to pay costs.
Legal Topics
['improper Purpose in Exercise of Statutory Power' 'uncertainty of Administrative Decision' 'certainty of Contractual Offer of Renewal' 'effect of Repeal of an Amending Act' 'commercial Service Contract Renewal' 'exclusive Rights to Operate Regular Passenger Services']
['administrative Law' 'contract Law' 'statutory Interpretation' 'transport Law'] ['improper Purpose in Exercise of Statutory Power' 'uncertainty of Administrative Decision' 'certainty of Contractual Offer of Renewal' 'effect of Repeal of an Amending Act' 'commercial Service Contract Renewal' 'exclusive Rights to Operate Regular Passenger Services']

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

Equity Division, Commercial List Proceeding by Summons Seeking Declaratory and Consequential Relief Concerning a Commercial Bus Service Contract and a Determination Under the Passenger Transport Act 1990 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the delegate's determination under s.24 of the Passenger Transport Act 1990 varying the plaintiff's exclusive service region by excising the Liverpool-Parramatta Transitway route was ultra vires, void or of no legal effect." 'Whether the determination was made bona fide and for the statutory purpose for which the power under s.24 was conferred, or for an ulterior purpose.' 'Whether the delegate had regard to irrelevant considerations, failed to have regard to relevant considerations, or made an unreasonable or uncertain determination.' 'Whether s.28(3) of the Passenger Transport Act 1990 precluded the plaintiff from raising judicial review issues.' 'Whether the offer of renewal of the contract was a valid and certain renewal offer in respect of a varied region or route.' 'Whether the plaintiff was entitled to renewal of the contract for a further five years and related relief.']

Ratio Decidendi

The delegate's s.24 determination was invalid because it was made for the primary ulterior purpose of enabling the Government to competitively tender the LPT route and obtain better financial value, rather than for the statutory purpose of varying the plaintiff's renewed contract to improve transport services in the relevant public interest. The determination and proposed renewal were also uncertain because the draft contract did not state with certainty when or how the LPT excision would take effect, despite the letter contemplating a future unspecified date. Section 22, not s.24, was the proper mechanism for additional services such as the LPT, and s.28 did not provide an adequate...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff succeeded; declarations and order made, and defendants ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • ["Declarations in terms of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the plaintiff's Summons dated 10 March 2000." "An order in terms of paragraph 4 of the plaintiff's Summons dated 10 March 2000." "The defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings." "The exhibits be returned at the expiration of twenty-eight (28) days...