CITATION: Afchal -v- General Manager, Tow Truck Authority of NSW [2001] NSWADT 223 DIVISION: General Division PARTIES: APPLICANT
Jihad Afchal
RESPONDENT
General Manager, Tow Truck Authority of NSWFILE NUMBER: 013289 HEARING DATES: 14/12/2001 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 12/14/2001 DATE OF DECISION:
12/31/2001BEFORE: Hennessy N (Deputy President) APPLICATION: Tow Truck Industry Act - tow truck operator or driver - grant of licence or certificate - Tow Truck operator or driver - grant of licence or certificate MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Tow Truck Industry Act 1989
Tow Truck Industry Regulation 1999CASES CITED: REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
In person
RESPONDENT
P Ranken, solicitorORDERS: The decision of the respondent to refuse to issue the applicant with a tow truck driver’s certificate is affirmed.
Introduction
1 At the directions hearing in this matter on 14 December 2001, the parties agreed that the matter should be decided “on the papers” pursuant to s 76 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (ADT Act). The issue for determination is whether the respondent has made the “correct and preferable” decision in refusing Mr Afchal’s application for a driver’s certificate under the Tow Truck Industry Act 1998 (TTI Act).
2 Under s 26(1) of the TTI Act, the Tow Truck Authority must refuse to grant an application for a driver’s certificate on mandatory grounds. Some of those grounds are listed in s 26(1). Other grounds are listed in the Tow Truck Industry Regulation 1999 (the Regulation). Clause 17(b) of the Regulation provides the an additional mandatory ground that:
3 The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this application under s 45(1) of the TTI Act.
(b) the applicant has, within the period of 3 years before the application for the driver certificate was made, been disqualified from holding a driver licence.
4 Mr Afchal agreed that he was disqualified from holding a driver licence for the period from 24 September 1997 to 14 September 2000. Mr Afchal said that when he originally applied for a tow truck certificate, it was granted. He then bought an $80,000 tilt tray. When it was time to renew his certificate the Tow Truck Authority refused his application. He would like a driver certificate so that he can continue to do the work that he was previously doing.
Facts5 The date on which Mr Afchal applied for a certificate is not apparent from the papers. However, regardless of the date of the application, Mr Afchal will not be eligible to apply for a driver certificate until 24 September 2003. On that date he will not have been disqualified within the period of 3 years before the application. It appears that Mr Afchal’s confusion may have arisen from the fact that the legislation has changed and while he may have previously been eligible for a driver certificate the legislation now prevents a certificate from being issued. Neither the Tow Truck Authority, nor the Tribunal has any option but to refuse the certificate given the mandatory grounds in the legislation.
Decision
Details
- AGLC
- Afchal v General Manager, Tow Truck Authority of NSW [2001] NSWADT 223
- Case
- [2001] NSWADT 223
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Afchal sought judicial review of the General Manager, Tow Truck Authority of NSW's refusal to issue him with a tow truck driver's certificate. The decision was challenged in the NSW Supreme Court. The applicant contended that the decision was unreasonable, discriminatory, and breached natural justice.
The court considered whether the General Manager's decision to refuse Afchal a certificate was lawful and reasonable. This involved examining whether the decision was based on relevant considerations, the correct application of the law, and whether there was any procedural unfairness or discrimination. The court also examined the applicant's arguments regarding the impact of his criminal history on his ability to obtain a certificate and the General Manager's duty to consider the circumstances of the applicant's criminal history.
The court found that the General Manager's decision was lawful and reasonable. It was held that the General Manager was entitled to consider the applicant's criminal history and that there was no procedural unfairness or discrimination in the decision-making process. The court found that the General Manager had considered the relevant factors and had not acted irrationally or in breach of natural justice. The application for judicial review was dismissed, and the decision of the General Manager was affirmed.
The court considered whether the General Manager's decision to refuse Afchal a certificate was lawful and reasonable. This involved examining whether the decision was based on relevant considerations, the correct application of the law, and whether there was any procedural unfairness or discrimination. The court also examined the applicant's arguments regarding the impact of his criminal history on his ability to obtain a certificate and the General Manager's duty to consider the circumstances of the applicant's criminal history.
The court found that the General Manager's decision was lawful and reasonable. It was held that the General Manager was entitled to consider the applicant's criminal history and that there was no procedural unfairness or discrimination in the decision-making process. The court found that the General Manager had considered the relevant factors and had not acted irrationally or in breach of natural justice. The application for judicial review was dismissed, and the decision of the General Manager was affirmed.
Orders
Orders of the court
The decision of the respondent to refuse to issue the applicant with a tow truck driver’s certificate is affirmed.
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.