Streater v Commissioner of Fines Administration

INTRODUCTION

1. [1]

   Sections 48, 49 and 50 of the Fines Act 1996 (“the Act”) are in the following terms:

2. [2]

   On 18 August 2010 the plaintiff was issued with an Infringement Notice in respect of an offence of driving whilst using a hand-held mobile telephone. That offence attracted a monetary penalty of $258.00. That penalty was not paid by the plaintiff, as a consequence of which an Enforcement Order No. 293614146 (“the order”) was issued to the plaintiff by the State Debt Recovery Office (“SDRO”) on 6 November 2010.

3. [3]

   On 21 April 2011 the plaintiff made application for annulment of the order pursuant to s. 49 of the Act, asserting that he was “not aware that a penalty notice was issued”. He asserts that he received no response to that correspondence.

4. [4]

   On 18 February 2014 the plaintiff lodged an appeal to the Local Court against the refusal of the SDRO to annul the order (as well as a number of other similar orders, the issues in respect of which have since been resolved between the parties).

5. [5]

   The matter first came before the learned Magistrate on 27 February 2014 at which time the plaintiff appeared in person. On that occasion, it was adjourned. It came before the Magistrate again on 22 April 2014, at which time the prosecutor submitted to the Magistrate that the Local Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter because the proceedings had been brought out of time.

6. [6]

   On 5 June 2014 the matter again came before the Magistrate who concluded (inter alia) as follows (commencing at T4 L11):

7. [7]

   The plaintiff appealed to this Court, pursuant to Part 50 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, against the Magistrate’s decision.

8. [8]

   On 1 October 2015 the Registrar received a letter from the solicitor for the defendant, the effect of which was to concede that the plaintiff’s appeal should be allowed and the matter remitted to the Magistrate for determination according to law. The underlying rationale for that position was expressed in the following terms:

9. [9]

   In my view, the correspondence from the defendant’s solicitor accurately summarises what took place before the Magistrate. The defendant fairly and properly concedes that in those circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought. The Magistrate’s conclusion was based, at least in part, upon propositions which were contrary to the plaintiff’s assertions. It was, of course, open to the Magistrate to accept or reject such assertions. If the Magistrate rejected them, the plaintiff was entitled to be provided with reasons why that conclusion was reached, and to have his proceedings determined on their merits.

10. [10]

    Accordingly, for these reasons, I make the following orders:

    1. (1)

       The appeal is allowed.

    2. (2)

       The hearing date of 19 October 2015 before this Court is vacated.

    3. (3)

       The determination of the Magistrate made on 5 June 2014 that the Local Court had no jurisdiction to hear the proceedings brought by the plaintiff in respect of Enforcement Order 293614146 is set aside.

    4. (4)

       The matter is remitted to the Local Court to be dealt with according to law.

    5. (5)

       Each party is to pay its own costs of these proceedings.