WESTERN FREIGHT MANAGEMENT PTY LIMITED v ROAD TRANSPORT AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES [2009] NSWSC 328

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : WESTERN FREIGHT MANAGEMENT PTY LIMITED v ROAD TRANSPORT AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES [2009] NSWSC 328

HEARING DATE(S) : Tuesday 28 April 2009

JUDGMENT DATE : 30 April 2009

JURISDICTION : Common Law

JUDGMENT OF : Hall J at 1

DECISION : The summons is dismissed

CATCHWORDS : STATUTORY INTERPRETATION - meaning of "operator" in s.21(1), Road Transport (General) Act 2005 - the operator of prime movers (the plaintiff) not the company supplying trailers attached to the prime mover was the "operator" for the purpose of s.21(1)(b) of the Act.

LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 Road Transport (General) Act 2005

CASES CITED : Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355

PARTIES : WESTERN FREIGHT MANAGEMENT PTY LIMITED v ROAD TRANSPORT AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC No 15409 of 2008

COUNSEL : P: G Hatcher SC/S Coleman D: P R Nash

SOLICITORS : P: King Christopher Lawyers D: Hunt & Hunt

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Local Court

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : C A Elliot

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION : 11 September 2008

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

HALL J

THURSDAY 30 APRIL 2009

No 15409 of 2008

WESTERN FREIGHT MANAGEMENT PTY LIMITED v ROAD TRANSPORT AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff, Western Freight Management Pty Limited, commenced proceedings in this Court by summons filed on 15 October 2008. 2 The proceedings concern a decision of the Local Court at Kurri Kurri (his Honour Magistrate C A Elliott) given on 11 September 2008. In that decision, the Local Court determined that the plaintiff was guilty in respect of two breaches of s.56 of the Road Transport (General) Act 2005 (the "Act") in that it was, on two separate occasions, the operator of two different motor vehicles that exceeded specified length dimension limits. 3 On 25 September 2008, his Honour, Magistrate Elliott, imposed a fine of $200 in each matter of court costs of $73. 4 The plaintiff now seeks leave to appeal from the decision pursuant to the provisions of s.53 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001. Section 53(1) provides that any person who has been convicted or sentenced by a Local Court may by leave appeal to this Court against the conviction or sentence on a ground that involves a question of fact or a question of mixed law and fact. 5 The plaintiff contends that the learned magistrate committed an error of law in his construction of certain provisions of the Road Transport (General) Act. 6 In the summons, an order is sought setting aside the convictions of the plaintiff and additionally declarations are sought in the following terms:- "3. A declaration that the learned magistrate erred in his finding that the defendant was, by virtue of being the owner of the prime mover, in control of the operations of the combination, and was therefore relevantly the operator of the combination. 4. A declaration that the learned magistrate was otherwise in error in finding that the defendant was the operator of the combination."