Martinez v Roads and Maritime Services (No 2) [2014] NSWCATOD 121

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Martinez v Roads and Maritime Services (No 2) [2014] NSWCATOD 121 Hearing dates: 23 July 2014 and 18 September 2014 Decision date: 27 October 2014 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: J McAteer, Senior Member Decision: 1. The decision of the Respondent is affirmed. 2. The application is dismissed. Catchwords: Fit and proper person - good repute - Authorised to drive - jurisdiction decide application if licence cancelled Legislation Cited: Passenger Transport Act 1990 Passenger Transport Regulation 2007 Road Transport Act 2013 Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Cases Cited: AJO v Director-General Department of Transport [2012] NSWADT 101 Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 49 FLR 409. Category: Principal judgment Parties: Luciano Martinez (Applicant Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent) Representation: L Martinez (Applicant in person) Smythe Wozniack Solicitors (Respondent) File Number(s): 1330346

reasons for decision

Background 1This matter came before me for hearing on 23 July 2014. The substantive application is an application by Mr Martinez for a review of a decision by the Respondent to cancel his taxi-cab driver authority. At the conclusion of the hearing on that occasion (and the conclusion of the Applicant's evidence) I made an interlocutory decision in respect of the lifting of a stay. That decision is: Martinez v Roads and Maritime Services [2014] NSWCATOD99. 2After lifting the stay, the matter was adjourned until 18 September 2014. At the conclusion of the initial hearing on 23 July 2014, all of the Respondent's evidence (and the Applicants cross examination) had concluded. In addition, the Applicant's evidence had concluded and the Respondents cross-examination of the Applicant was partly completed. It was for this reason that the matter was adjourned 'part - heard' rather than finalised on 23 July 2014. 3The matter was listed on 18 September 2014. Initially the matter had been adjourned until 10:00am on that day, but the Registry needed to reschedule the hearing until later in the day at 1:30pm. Advice was sought as to whether that was agreeable to the parties. Correspondence was sent by Express Post to the parties on 16 September 2014 (next day delivery). 4From a copy of an e-mail provided at the hearing by Mr Wozniak, Solicitor who appeared for the Respondent, it appears that the Applicant contacted Mr Wozniak by e-mail on 17 September 2014 seeking an adjournment due to the fact that he was overseas attending to a family matter apparently involving an illness of a member of his family. 5The Applicant indicated that he contacted Mr Wozniak as he was having difficulty contacting the Tribunal by e-mail.