McCamish v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 64

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: McCamish v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 64 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 28 February 2022 Decision date: 28 February 2022 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: Naida Isenberg, Senior Member Decision: 1. Being satisfied that the matter can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties, the Tribunal dispenses with a hearing pursuant to s 50(2) CAT Act. 2. The Application for Review is dismissed pursuant to s 55(1)(d) of the CAT Act. Catchwords: PROCEDURE –Dismissal of proceedings for want of prosecution Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Cases Cited: Deeb v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2021] NSWCATAD 253 DQF v Department of Finance, Services and Innovation [2019] NSWCATAD 82 DQF v Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales [2021] NSWCATAD 9 Fei v Director-General, Department of Commerce (No 2) [2009] NSW ADT 109 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Maxwell Roy McCamish (Applicant ) Commissioner of Police (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Applicant (Self-represented) McCulloch Robertson Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 2021/00250763 Publication restriction: nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background 1. The Applicant, Maxwell Roy McCamish, has held a firearms licence since 2012. In December 2020 the Applicant's licence was suspended and, on 23 June 2021 the Respondent decided to revoke the Applicant's firearms licence. That decision was affirmed on internal review. The Applicant then sought review by this Tribunal. 2. The Respondent presently seeks an order that: 1. the Application for Review be dismissed pursuant to s 55(1)(d) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (CAT Act) for want of prosecution; or, alternatively 2. the Application for Review be dismissed pursuant to s 55(1)(c) of the CAT Act because the Applicant has failed to appear in the proceedings. 1. In support of the application the Respondent relied on an affidavit by Nathan John Roberts, the solicitor with the carriage of the matter for the Respondent, dated 2 February 2022. No evidence or submissions were filed by the Applicant in the substantive matter, nor in relation to the application by the Respondent to dismiss his Application for Review.