TEAMCARD PTY LTD v STATE OF NSW [2011] NSWSC 1008

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: TEAMCARD PTY LTD v STATE OF NSW [2011] NSWSC 1008 Hearing dates: 14 February 2011 Decision date: 05 September 2011 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: RS HULME J Decision: (i) The summons is dismissed. (ii) The Plaintiffs are to pay the Defendants' costs. Catchwords: Public passenger service - Taxi-cab service Legislation Cited: Passenger Transport Act 1990 (NSW), Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002 (NSW) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Teamcard Pty Limited (1st Plaintiff) NSW Taxi Council Limited (2nd Plaintiff) State of New South Wales (1st Defendant) New South Wales Minister for Education and Training (2nd Defendant) Representation: Ms CE Adamson SC with Mr C Lenehan Ms J Needham SC with Mr JM Morris Pigott Stinson Lawyers Eakin McCaffery Cox File Number(s): 2010/405141

Judgment 1RS HULME J: On 4 November 2010 the NSW Department of Education and Training issued a:- Request for Tender No. DETP 1028 PROVISION OF TRANSPORT SERVICES THROUGHOUT NSW TO THE ASSISTED SCHOOL TRAVEL PROGRAM FOR NSW DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING - CREATION OF ELIGIBLE SERVICE PROVIDER LIST - 2011-2016 2On 16 November 2010 Messrs Piggott Stinson, Solicitors acting on behalf of the Milton Ulladulla Taxis Hire Cars & Limousines and the NSW Taxi Council wrote to the Chief Procurement Officer of the Department of Education and Training suggesting that the terms of the Request unfairly prejudiced members of those organisations who were contemplating responding to the request and asking that the request be amended in certain respects. The letter set out detailed reasoning in support of the contention. 3On 19 November 2010 Solicitors acting for the Department responded saying that the Department did not propose to amend the Request. This letter also contained detailed argument directed to countering that advanced by Messrs Piggott Stinson. 4On 6 December 2010 a Summons commencing these proceedings was filed. As amended the Summons seeks:- (1)An order in the nature of certiorari that the decision of the first defendant's decision or, alternatively, the second defendant to refuse the request made by the plaintiffs that the defendant amend the RFT be amended be set aside. (2)An order in the nature of mandamus remitting to the first defendant or, alternatively, the second defendant consideration of the plaintiffs' request for amendment of the RFT for determination according to law. (3)A declaration that the defendant's refusal by the first defendant or, alternatively, the second defendant of the plaintiffs' request for amendment of the RFT was invalid. (4)Such further or other orders as to this Honourable Court seems fit. (5)Costs.