Doyle v NSW Maritime (No 2) [2012] NSWADT 55

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Doyle v NSW Maritime (No 2) [2012] NSWADT 55 Decision date: 27 March 2012 Jurisdiction: General Division Before: S Higgins, Deputy President Decision: The respondent's application for costs is refused. Catchwords: Costs Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Freedom of Information Act 1989 (repealed) Maritime Services Act 1998 Motor Dealers Act 1974 Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 Cases Cited: AT V Commissioner of Police, NSW [2010] NSWCA 131 Boutros v Director-General, Department of Finance and Services (No. 2) (costs) (GD) [2012] NSWADTAP 7 Doyle v NSW Maritime [2011] NSWADT 113 Miriani v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2005] NSWADT 99 Category: Costs Parties: Dr David Doyle (Applicant) NSW Maritime (Respondent) Representation: Dr Doyle (Applicant in person) Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondent) File Number(s): 103118

REasons for decision

Introduction 1GENERAL DIVISION: S Higgins, Deputy President. The applicant, Dr Doyle, made an application seeking review of a decision of the respondent agency, NSW Maritime. It was Dr Doyle's contention that the respondent had made a decision, under section 42 of the Marine Safety Act 1998 (the MS Act), in regard to conditions on the marine safety licences of the boat share vessels owned by Blue Sky Boating. That is, Dr Doyle contended that the respondent, contrary its boat share guidelines, had decided not to make these licences subject to the conditions set out in the guidelines and had instead issued the licences subject to conditions, which failed to address public safety issues. Dr Doyle is the holder of a non-voting Unit in a boat share trust and as a holder of a Unit is entitled to make a booking and use a Blue Sky Boating vessel. 2From the time Dr Doyle commenced his proceedings the respondent contended that Dr Doyle had failed to identify a reviewable decision and hence the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear and determine his application for review. 3With the consent of the parties, this issue was determined as a preliminary matter. Both parties filed and served written submissions and at the request of Dr Doyle, I heard oral arguments on 8 November 2010. Subsequently, I determined that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine Dr Doyle's application: see Doyle v NSW Maritime [2011] NSWADT 113. 4My decision was published on 24 May 2011. On 5 July 2011, the respondent wrote to the Registrar seeking orders for the filing and serving of written submissions in regard to costs. In its letter, the respondent pointed out that, at the conclusion of the hearing on 8 November 2010, it had foreshadowed its application for costs in the event Dr Doyle's application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Regrettably, there was a delay in responding to the respondent's letter. However, on 18 January 2012, the Registrar wrote to the parties informing them of directions I had made for the filing and serving of written submissions in regard to costs. In compliance with those orders the respondent filed written submissions on 31 January 2012 and Dr Doyle filed written submissions in reply on 20 February 2012. In his submissions in reply, Dr Doyle asserted that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to make the orders it had made on 18 January 2012. He also asserted that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to award costs and in the alternative, 'in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal cannot exercise any jurisdiction to award costs in the circumstances of this case.' 5For the reasons set out below, I have found that the Tribunal does have jurisdiction to hear and determine the respondent's application for costs. However, I have determined that there should be no order as to costs.