Oris & Otis Pty Ltd v Point to Point Transport Commissioner [2026] NSWCATOD 115

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – cancellation of taxi licence – suspension of taxi service provider authorisation and booking service provider authorisation Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Oris & Otis Pty Ltd v Point to Point Transport Commissioner [2026] NSWCATOD 115 Hearing dates: 7 April 2026 19 May 2026 – close of submissions Date of orders: 28 August 2026 Decision date: 28 August 2026 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: J Smith, Senior Member Decision: (1) The Respondent’s decision to cancel the Applicant’s taxi licence is affirmed. (2) The Respondent’s decision to suspend the Applicant’s taxi service provider authorisation and booking service provider authorisation is set aside. In substitution for this decision, the Applicant’s taxi service provider authorisation and booking service provider authorisation are both cancelled. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – cancellation of taxi licence – suspension of taxi service provider authorisation and booking service provider authorisation Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Point to Point Transport (Taxis and Hire Vehicles) Act 2016 (NSW) Point to Point Transport (Taxis and Hire Vehicles) Regulation 2017 (NSW) Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Regulation 2017 (NSW) Cases Cited: Archer v Point to Point Transport Commissioner [2025] NSWCATOD 8 Clayton v Bant [2020] HCA 44 Haggar v Point to Point Transport Commissioner [2018] NSWCATOD 38 Jackson v Goldsmith (1950) 81 CLR 446 Lake v Golf Australia Limited [2026] NSWCATAP 199 Lal v Director-General, Department of Transport [2001] NSWADT 74 YG and GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247 Texts Cited: New South Wales Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 2 June 2016, 1-7 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Oris & Otis Pty Ltd (Applicant) Point to Point Transport Commissioner (Respondent) Representation: Point to Point Transport Commissioner (Respondent) Applicant (self-represented) File Number(s): 2025/00420780 Publication restriction: None REASONS FOR DECISION The Application and the Tribunal’s Decision The Applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of decisions the Respondent made under the Point to Point Transport (Taxis and Hire Vehicle) Act 2016 (NSW) (PTP Act) . The decisions were to cancel his t axi l icence and suspend his taxi s ervice p rovider ( T SP) a uthorisation and booking s ervice p rovider ( B SP) authorisation. The Respondent made these decisions because of the Applicant ’ s history of providing passenger services in an unregistered vehicle , failing to respond about an unresolved complaint and breaches of the PTP Act . I affirm the Respondent ’ s decision to cancel the Applicant ’ s taxi licence. I set aside the Respondent ’ s decision to suspend the Applicant ’ s TSP authorisation and BSP authorisation, and I substitute that decision with a decision to cancel these authorisations. Issues The issues are: Is cancelling the Applicant ’ s taxi licence the correct and preferable decision ? If not, what is the correct and preferable decision? Is suspending the Applicant ’ s TSP and BSP authorisations the correct and preferable decision ? I f not, what is the correct and preferable decision? Overview In April 2023, the Applicant was issued with a t axi l icence associated with a specific NSW registration plate ( “ T1 ” ) . Since 27 June 2023, the Applicant provided a taxi service by operating a taxi bearing T1. This is the only taxi operated by the Applicant. The sole Director of Oris & Otis Pty Ltd and operator of th e taxi is the Applicant. A BSP takes bookings for taxis or hire vehicles to provide passenger services and communicates bookings to drivers or to providers of passenger services. A person or business must be authorised as a TSP to provide rank and hail taxi services. TSPs who also take bookings need to become authorised as a BSP , which is a separate authorisation . In June 2023, the Applicant was issued with both a BSP authorisation and a TSP authorisation. In April 2025, the Respondent conducted an audit of the Applicant ’ s vehicle and operating procedures. As a result of this audit, the Respondent issued an Improvement Notice and four notices requiring the Applicant to attend for an inspection. The Applicant failed to comply with these notices or attend the required inspections. In May 2025, the Respondent issued a notice of immediate suspension and proposed cancellation of the Applicant ’ s TSP and BSP authorisations, as well as a notice of immediate suspension of the Applicant ’ s t axi l icence. In June 2025, the Respondent lifted the suspensions that had been imposed as the Applicant presented the vehicle for inspection. In July 2025, the Respondent received a complaint from a customer who was a passenger in a vehicle (confirmed later to be T1, operating under the Applicant ’ s t axi l icence and TSP authorisation ) . The customer stated that they had got into the taxi and asked to be taken to the domestic airport. The driver allegedly did not know the way and had obscured the meter. When the customer challenged the driver about the fare, the driver pulled over, removed the customer ’ s luggage from the taxi and told the customer to leave the vehicle. The customer was then required to walk back to the taxi rank with their luggage in the rain. On 9 July 2025, registration of T1 was cancelled due to a fine default. Th e Applicant was on a payment plan with Revenue NSW in respect of a number of accrued fines and had not added a fine to this payment plan . At this time, t he Respondent was not aware that the T1 registration had been cancell ed . Between 20 June 2025 and 31 July 2025, the Respondent made eight attempts to contact the Applicant via telephone and emails. The Applicant did not respond to any of these communications . On 31 July 2025, the Respondent issued a Notice to Produce Documents or Information under s 139A of the PTP Act ( “ s 139A Notice ” ), requiring that the Applicant contact the Respondent on a specific phone number by 7 August 2025 in relation to the unresolved complaint . Section 139A(1)(c) of the PTP Act provides that if the Commissioner has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is capable of giving information, providing documents or giving evidence in relation to a possible contravention of the PTP Act, o r that will assist the Commissioner to monitor or enforce compliance with the PTP Act, the Commission may by written notice require the person to appear before a person appointed by the Commissioner on a day, time and place as specified in the notice. Failure to comply with a s 139A notice is an offence under s 139(4) of the PTP Act that carries a maximum penalty of $10,000 for an individual and $50,000 for a body corporate. On 1 August 2025, the Applicant sent an email to the Respondent ’ s Sanction Unit. The title of this email was “ Re: s139A Notice to Produce Documents or Information ” . The Applicant stated that he could not log into the system and provided his mobile number. The Respondent attempted to contact the Applicant four times on the mobile number he provided. On each occasion, a detailed message was left with a request that the Applicant call back. The Applicant did not do so. The Applicant did not comply with the s 139A Notice issued on 31 July 2025. The Applicant failed to provide any reason to the Respondent for his non-compliance. On 11 August 2025, the Respondent issue d a second s 139A Notice, requiring the Applicant to attend the Respondent ’ s office on 28 August 2025 . This date, however, needed to be rescheduled by the Respondent for a reason not associated with the Applicant . This s 139A Notice was withdrawn by the Respondent on 21 August 2025. On 21 August 2025, the Respondent issued a third s 139A Notice, requiring the Applicant to attend the Respondent ’ s office on 28 August 2025. The Applicant contacted the Respondent ’ s office on 21 August 2025, advising that he was unable to attend on that date because he was inte r state. The Respondent agreed to change the meeting to an online meeting, and an email was sent to the Applicant with a link for an online meeting. The Applicant failed to attend the online meeting on 28 August 2025 and otherwise did not attend the Respondent ’ s office on this date . On 29 August 2025, the Respondent discovered that the registration of T1 had been cancelled on 9 July 2025 due to a fine default . The Respondent also confirmed from CCTV that the Applicant ’ s taxi had been sighted after 9 July 2025, operating in taxi zones while not registered - on 9 August 2025, 13 August 2025 and 22 August 2025. By letter dated 2 September 2025, the Respondent notified the Applicant of the immediate suspension and proposed cancellation of the Applicant ’ s t axi l icence. Under s 69 (1) of the PTP Act : (1) The Commissioner may vary, suspend or cancel a taxi licence if (a) the holder fails to comply with a condition of the licence, or (b) the holder, or owing to the default of the holder or any agent or member of staff of the holder, fails to comply with this Act or the regulations, or (b1) without limiting paragraph (b), the holder provides a taxi service without being— (i) authorised to provide the service, or (ii) an affiliated provider, or (c) the taxi service for which the licensed taxi is used has been or is being conducted in a manner that causes danger to the public, or (d) for any other reason the Commissioner thinks fit. The Respondent suspended the Applicant ’ s licence for the following reasons : By providing a taxi service while the taxi was not registered, the Applicant did not comply with reg 8(1) of the Point to Point Transport (Taxis and Hire Vehicles) Regulation 2017 (NSW) (PTP Regulation), which requires that a vehicle used to provide a passenger service must at all times meet the requirements of Pt 5 of, and Sch 2 to, the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Regulation 2017 (NSW) for the registration of the vehicle. By providing a taxi service while the taxi was not registered , the Applicant also breached reg 6(1) of the PTP Regulation, which provides that the holder of a taxi licence must not contravene a safety standard specified for the holder. Vehicle registration and registration standards for vehicles are a safety standard (PTP Regulation, reg 5). By letter dated 11 September 2025, the Respondent notified the Applicant of the immediate suspension and proposed cancellation of the Applicant ’ s TSP and BSP authorisations. Under s 45 of the PTP Act : The Commissioner may vary, suspend or cancel an authorisation to provide a taxi service or booking service if— (a) the provider does not comply with a standard required to be met for authorisation to provide the service to which the authorisation relates, or (b) the provider fails to comply with a condition of the authorisation, or (c) the provider fails to comply with this Act or the regulations, or (d) a close associate of the provider has previously held an authorisation (whether for the operation of the same or a different service) that has been cancelled, or (e) in the opinion of the Commissioner, the service has been or is being conducted in a manner that causes danger to the public, or (f) for any other reason the Commissioner thinks fit. The Respondent suspended the Applicant ’ s TSP and BSP authorisations for the following reasons: By providing a taxi service while the taxi was not registered , the Applicant had failed to comply with vehicle registration requirements and safety standards and therefore had contravened a condition of authorisation (PTP Act, ss 29, 42). The Applicant had failed to comply with the s 139A notices and therefore failed to comply with the PTP Act . On 17 September 2025, the Applicant contacted Revenue NSW and as a result the registration of T1 was restored on this date . The Applicant received a letter from Transport for NSW dated 17 September 2025, sent to the Applicant ’ s street address, notifying him that Revenue NSW had authorised f o r Transport for NSW to “ lift the business restriction ” and accordingly, restore the registration for T1. CCTV records obtained by the Respondent showed the Applicant ’ s taxi operating in a taxi zone on 27 September 2025 and 29 September 2025, while the Applicant ’ s taxi licence and TSP authorisation were suspended. A taxi zone can only be used by drivers if they are available for hire to provide passenger services. It is an offence in reg 76 of the PTP Regulation for a driver of a taxi to cause or allow the taxi to stand in a taxi zone if the taxi is hired or not available for hire. The CCTV images show the Applicant ’ s taxi in a taxi zone. By letter dated 30 September 2025 , sent to a street address as well as the Applicant ’ s two email addresses , the Respondent notified the Applicant of the cancellation of the Applicant ’ s t axi l icence. The Respondent noted that the Applicant ’ s responses during the show cause process had not adequately addressed the concerns. Due to this, further attempts were made by the Respondent to contact the Applicant on 22 September 2025 (including leaving detailed voice messages), however the Applicant did not answer these calls. On 30 September 2025, the Applicant phoned the Respondent following receiving the cancellation notice for this taxi licence. The Applicant was advised of his right to apply for an internal review. The Respondent stated that he could not always pick up his phone and his registration had been reinstated. On 3 October 2025, the Respondent emailed the Applicant, advising the Applicant to cease operating immediately due to the cancellation of the Applicant ’ s tax i licence and suspension of the TSP and BSP authorisations. CCTV records obtained by the Respondent showed the Applicant ’ s taxi operating in taxi zones on 2 October 2025, 4 October 2025, 29 October 2025 and 12 November 2025. On 20 October 2025, the Respondent ’ s decisions to cancel the Applicant ’ s t axi l icence and suspend the Applicant ’ s TSP and BSP authorisation s w ere affirmed on internal review. The Respondent was not satisfied that the Applicant had provided adequate reasons for operating his taxi while not registered and not responding to the attempts the Respondent made to contact him . The Respondent was also not satisfied that the Applicant had demonstrated that he would comply with the PTP Act, PTP Regulation and conditions of authorisation. The decision in relation to the Applicant ’ s TSP and BSP authorisations was described in the internal review as “ suspension and proposed cancellation ” . At the time of the internal review request, the Respondent had not yet decided whether to cancel the Applicant ’ s TSP and BSP authorisations after the initial suspension. On 31 October 2025, the Applicant filed an administrative review application, seeking a review of these decisions. On 4 November 2025, the Respondent received a complaint from a passenger about the Applicant (confirmed to be in relation to T1) . It was alleged t hat during a trip that day the meter was not visible and the passenger believed they had been overcharged. On 18 May 2026 , the Local Court imposed a $1,000 fine on the Applicant for “ provide unauthorised tax i service ” and a conditional release order without conviction for six months (ending 17 November 2026) for “ drive, licence suspended under s 66 Fines Act ” . On 29 June 2026, after the Tribunal’s decision was reserved, the Applicant sent correspondence to the Tribunal stating that Local Court had imposed a $1,000 fine on the Applicant for the offences noted above and that because of this, the proceedings “falls within the frame of Res Judicata”. Directions were subsequently made for the Applicant to file an application to re-open the matter for further evidence and submissions by 3 July 2026, if that is what he was intending to do. The Applicant did not comply with this direction and so no further directions or orders were made by the Tribunal. The rule as to res judicata was expressed by F ullagar J in his dissenting judgment in Jackson v Goldsmith (1950) 81 CLR 446 at 466 . His Honour said: “where an action has been brought and judgment has been entered in that action, no other proceedings can thereafter be maintained on the same cause of action , no other proceedings can thereafter be maintained on the same cause of action.” As explained by Gordon J in Clayton v Bant [2020] HCA 44 at [53], “t he application of the doctrine of res judicata hinges on the controversy that has been quelled in the earlier proceeding .” The rule operates to prevent a party from bringing further action with respect to a subject matter that has been previously raised and determined, in a final judgment, before a competent Tribunal between the same parties: Lake v Golf Australia Limited [2026] NSWCATAP 199 at [58]. T he imposition of a fine by the Local Court in respect of those offences does not exclude the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review the Respondent’s decisions nor does it prevent the Applicant from applying to the Tribunal for administrative review of the Respondent’s decisions. Tribunal’s jurisdiction and role A decision to suspend or cancel an authorisation or a taxi licence is a reviewable decision ( PTP Act, s 145(2)(b) ) . The Applicant may apply to the Tribunal for an administrative review of this decision under the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) (ADR Act ) . In determining an application for administrative review under the ADR Act , the Tribunal is to decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material then before it, including any relevant factual material and any applicable law (ADR Act, s 63(1)). The time at which the correct and preferable decision is determined is when the Tribunal makes its decision: YG and GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247 at [25]. The Tribunal may decide to affirm or vary the administratively reviewable decision, or set it aside and either substitute a different decision or remit the matter to the administrator for reconsideration ( ADR Act , s 63(3)). Under s 45 of the PTP Act (in relation to authorisations ) and s 69(1) of the PTP Act (in relation to a taxi licence), the Commissioner may vary, suspend or cancel a taxi licence or TSP/BSP authorisation for any of the reasons listed in those provisions. The final reason in each provision is “ for any other reason the Commissioner thinks fit ” . The reasons that the Respondent cancelled the Applicant ’ s taxi licence and suspended the Applicant ’ s TSP and BSP authorisations are set out at [22] and [24] above. While the PTP Act does not include express objects for the legislation, it is clear from Part 2 of the PTP Act ( “ Safety of Services ” ) that safety of the public is a paramount concern: Haggar v Point to Point Transport Commissioner [2018] NSWCATOD 38 at [37] - [38] . What that means is that I am permitted to consider public safety in deciding what is the correct and preferable decision. Is cancelling the Applicant’s taxi licence the correct and preferable decision? If not, what is the correct and preferable decision? Operating a taxi service while vehicle registration is cancelled Regulation 8(1) of the PTP Regulation requires that a vehicle used to provide a passenger service must at all times meet the requirements of Pt 5 of, and Sch 2 to, the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Regulation 2017 (NSW) for the registration of the vehicle. This is a safety standard that is specified for the owner of the vehicle (PTP Regulation, reg 8(3)) and for which the holder of the taxi licence is considered a responsible person (PTP Regulation, reg 8(4)). It is a condition of a taxi licence that the holder of the licence comply with the safety standards for the holder of any such licence (PTP Act, s 61). As noted above, the Applicant ’ s taxi licence is associated with T1. The registration for T1 was cancelled on 9 July 2025 due to a fine default, and not restored until 17 September 2025. CCTV evidence obtained by the Respondent confirmed that the vehicle registered as T1 was at various taxi ranks on dates between 9 July 2025 and 17 September 2025, while not registered. These dates were 9 August 2025, 13 August 2025 and 22 August 2025. I find that the Respondent was operating a taxi service on these dates, while the vehicle registration for T1 was cancelled. The Applicant state d that he was not aware of the cancellation of registration of T1 at the time because he was on a payment plan with Revenue NSW. The Applicant submits that this was an “ honest although unreasonable mistake of fact ” in relation to the registration status of the vehicle operating as a taxi. This is not the first time that the Applicant has been in default of fines . According to the Applicant ’ s Traffic Record Report as at 25 November 2025: On 26 August 2025, the Applicant ’ s unrestricted (class C) driver licence was suspended due to a fine default. As at 25 November 2025, this suspension had not been lifted. Between 24 April 2024 and 29 April 2024 , the Applicant ’ s unrestricted (class C) driver licence was suspended due to a fine default. The Applicant was advised on 28 April 2024 by Police not to drive as his licence was suspended. Between 10 January 2022 and 7 July 2022, the Applicant ’ s unrestricted (class C) driver licence was suspended due to a fine default. The Applicant was advised on 14 April 2022 by Police not to drive as his licence was suspended. Between 25 August 2020 and 24 September 2020, the Applicant ’ s unrestricted (class C) driver licence was suspended due to a fine default. Between 14 February 2020 and 20 February 2020 , the Applicant ’ s unrestricted (class C) driver licence was suspended due to a fine default. The Applicant was advised on 18 February 2020 by Police not to drive as his licence was suspended. Between 3 November 2017 and 18 May 2018, the Applicant ’ s unrestricted (class C) driver licence was suspended due to a fine default. Between 19 June 2017 and 28 June 2017, the Applicant ’ s unrestricted (class C) driver licence was suspended due to a fine default. Between 27 September 2016 and 9 March 2017, the Applicant ’ s unrestricted (class C) driver licence was suspended due to a fine default. The Applicant ’ s u nrestricted (Class C) driver licence was also suspended between 9 February 2021 and 8 June 2021 due to a loss of demerit points for several traffic offences. On 16 February 2021, the Applicant was advised by Police not to drive as his licence was suspended. Regulation 25(1)(a1) of the PTP Regulation provides that a person must not drive a taxi or hire vehicle that is being used to provide a passenger service unless the person holds an unrestricted Australian driver licence. This is a safety standard for which the responsible person is the provider of a taxi service, if the driver drives taxies for the service (PTP Regulation, reg 25(3)(a)). There was no evidence before the Tribunal of the notification to the Applicant, on or around 9 July 2025, of the cancellation of the registration of T1. The Respondent was not aware of the cancellation of the registration of T1 until 29 August 2025. I am not satisfied that the Applicant was notified of the cancellation of the registration of T1 . I am, however, satisfied that the Applicant did breach a safety standard , and therefore a condition of his taxi licence, by operating as a taxi while the registration for T1 was cancelled. The Applicant , as the holder of the taxi licence, was the responsible person for ensuring that the taxi he was operating met registration requirements. The Applicant has a long history of fine defaults and consequent suspension of his unrestricted (Class C) driver ’ s licence , as recently as 26 August 2025. It was also incumbent on the Applicant , as the responsible person, to ensure that he was not defaulting o n his current fines because not only would this result in the registration of T1 being cancelled, but also the suspension of his unrestricted driver ’ s licence which he required to operate a taxi . I therefore find that the Applicant failed to comply with a condition of his licence , which establishes the ground in s 69(1)(a) of the PTP Act . Operating a taxi service while taxi licence is suspended/cancelled Section 47 of the PTP Act provides a person must not use a motor vehicle to provide a taxi service unless the provider, or an employee, contractor or affiliated provider of that provider, is the holder of a taxi licence for the motor vehicl e. Even though the registration for T1 was restored on 17 September 2025, the Applicant has been prohibited from operating a taxi service since 2 September 2025 when the Applicant ’ s taxi licence was first suspended. During cross-examination, the Applicant confirmed that he had provided the Respondent with two email addresses and a mobile phone number when he applied for TSP and BSP authorisation. The letter of 2 September 2025 that notified the Applicant of the immediate suspension of the Applicant ’ s taxi licence was sent via email to the two email addresses that the Applicant had provided to the Respondent. The Applicant denied receiving these emails and the letter of 2 September 2025. The Applicant denied receiving the Respondent ’ s subsequent letters of 11 September 2025 and 30 September 202 5 and all three s 139A Notices. The Applicant stated that he should have received correspondence from the Respondent via the Respondent ’ s Industry Portal. The Applicant stated that he received numerous missed call s to his mobile phone while he was in university classes and saw that these calls were from a private number and did not answer them. The Applicant also stated that he did not receive the voicemail messages that the Respondent had left. On 17 September 2025, the Applicant emailed a delegate of the Respondent who he referred to as his “ boss (executive director) ” and stated that he had been “ wrongly suspended by this guy without actually articulating the correct facts ” . During cross-examination, the Applicant stated that he understood that his taxi licence and TSP and BSP authorisation s were suspended only after speaking to one of the Respondent ’ s delegates on 17 September 2025. The Respondent ’ s record of this 30-minute conversation on 17 September 2025 indicates that: This phone call was made after the Respondent had received the response from the Applicant earlier that day. The purpose of the call was to remind the Applicant that the Applicant ’ s taxi licence was still suspended. The Respondent ’ s delegate confirmed no less than five instances during the conversation that the Applicant ’ s taxi licence was suspended. The Respondent ’ s delegate confirmed that the Applicant cannot drive the vehicle bearing the T1 plates and cannot conduct TSP and BSP services as those authorisations were also suspended. The Applicant “ alluded to correspondence ” that the Respondent had sent to him but when the Respondent ’ s delegate attempted to clarify any detail, the information was disputed by the Applicant . On 22 September 2025, the Applicant emailed one of the Respondent ’ s delegates, stating: “ Mere looking at the letter attached to you earlier it appears that the said writer suspension clearly showed illegality ” . The Applicant also refer red to having received a letter from the author of the letters of 2 September 2025 and 11 September 2025 and ma de comments disputing the basis for the suspension. This evidence clearly contradicts the Applicant ’ s evidence given during cross-examination that he did not receive the letters of 2 September 2025 and 11 September 2025. I am satisfied that by at least 17 September 2025, the Applicant was aware of the suspension of the Applicant ’ s taxi licence and TSP and BSP authorisation s . When the CCTV photographs of the taxi in the taxi zones on 29 October 2025 and 12 November 2025 were shown to the Applicant during cross-examination, he said that it looks like the colour of his taxi but he could not see the plate number. The Applicant did not admit that it was his taxi. When a better copy of the photographs were provided to the Tribunal, it was clear that it was the Applicant ’ s taxi (T1). I am satisfied that the CCTV evidence and the evidence of the complaint made on 4 November 2025, confirms that the Applicant provided taxi services after 17 September 2025 – namely on 27 September 2025, 29 September 2025, 2 October 2025, 4 October 2025, 29 October 2025, 4 November 2025 and 12 November 2025 . The Applicant has therefore failed to comply with s 47 of the PTP Act on seven separate occasions after 17 September 2025 by using a motor vehicle to provide a taxi service without a taxi licence . Notably, the Applicant continued to provide a taxi service even after the outcome of the internal review and the commencement of these proceedings. I therefore find that the Applicant failed to comply with the PTP Act , which establishes the ground in s 69(1)(b) of the PTP Act. Operating a taxi service while TSP and BSP authorisations are suspended Section 27(1) of the PTP Act provides that a person must not provide a taxi service or booking service unless the person is authorised to provide that service. On the basis of the same evidence that confirms that the Applicant provided taxi services after 17 September 2025, I am satisfied that the Applicant provided a taxi service without a TSP authorisation. I therefore find that : the Applicant failed to comply with the PTP Act , which establishes the ground in s 69(1)(a) of the PTP Act , and t he Applicant provided a taxi service without being authorised to provide the service , which establishes the ground in s 69(1)(b1) of the PTP Act . Applicant’s failure to comply with the s 139A notices A person must not, without reasonable excuse, refuse or fail to comply with the requirement s in a s 139A Notice (PTP Act, s 139A(4)) . The Respondent issued s 139A Notices to the Applicant on 31 July 2025, 11 August 2025 and 21 August 2025 in relation to the unresolved complaint against the Applicant. The s 139A Notice issued on 11 August 2025 was withdrawn on 21 August 2025, however the Applicant did not contact the Respondent between 11 August 2025 and 21 August 2025. Putting aside this s 139A Notice, the Applicant did not contact the Respondent as directed and did not attend the Respondent ’ s office on 28 August 2025 despite the meeting being changed to occur online at the Applicant ’ s request . The Respondent did not provide any reason for failing to attend this meeting. In addition to the formal s 139A Notices, there were numerous other attempts made by the Respondent to contact the Applicant. During cross-examination, t he Applicant denied receiving the s 139A Notices because they were not sent to him via the Industry Portal . However, o n 1 August 2025, the Applicant sent an email to the Respondent ’ s Sanction Unit with the title: “ Re: s139A Notice to Produce Documents or Information ” and confirmed receiving the request . I therefore find that the Applicant did receive the notices via email and deliberately ignored the notices . I am satisfied that the Applicant failed to comply with the requirements in the s 139A Notices issued by the Respondent on 31 July 2025 and 21 August 2025 . I therefore find that the Applicant failed to comply with the PTP Act , which establishes the ground in s 69(1)(b) of the PTP Act . What is the correct and preferable decision? As outlined above, t here are three grounds listed in s 69(1) of the PTP Act that have been established. I am comfortably satisfied that the Applicant has: Failed to comply with a condition of the Applicant ’ s taxi licence (PTP Act, s 69(1)(a)), and Failed to comply with the PTP Act and PTP Regulation (PTP Act, s 69(1)(b)), and Has provided a taxi service without being authorised to provide a service (PTP Act, s 69(b1)(i)). Under s 69(1)(d) of the PTP Act, I can also vary, suspend or cancel the Applicant ’ s taxi licence for any other reason I see fit. The Respondent had significant difficulty attempting to communicate with the Applicant. When the Applicant did respond , these responses were unhelpful and did not directly address the concerns raised by the Respondent. Issuing a s 139A Notice is a last resort option for the Respondent in seeking to obtain relevant information to fulfil its role as regulator . Three Notices were issued to the Applicant to no avail, and the July 2025 complaint has remained unresolved. I find that the Applicant was not responsive to the Respondent ’ s numerous attempts to contact him , and the Applicant deliberately ignored the s 139A notices . The Applicant stated that he will comply with all relevant laws and regulations in the future. The Applicant stated that he attended workshops that were organised by the Respondent in 2024 which educated providers on compliance requirements . While it is positive that the Applicant attended such workshops, this did not prevent the Applicant from breaching the PTP Act and PTP Regulation on multiple occasions during 2025 , including after these proceedings commenced. The Applicant submits that he has taken steps to ensure that the issues of concern do not arise again. The Applicant stated that he remains on a payment plan with Revenue NSW, which he checks regularly and adds all fines into the plan as and when they are received. The Applicant relied on his account record with Revenue NSW which indicates that as of 17 December 2025, he had four open fines with a total balance of nearly $5,000. Three of these were subject to a payment plan, however one fine was not subject to a payment plan and due on 29 December 2025. This account record also note s that the Applicant was behind in his payments . An amount of $287 was due immediately and not all of the Applicant ’ s outstanding enforcement orders were on this plan. I am therefore not satisfied that this evidence supports the Applicant ’ s submission that he is taking reasonable steps to avoid another fine default . The Applicant submits that affirming the Respondent ’ s decision s would be a very harsh punishment for a “ rectified mistake ” . The Applicant did not articulate what this mistake was. I do not accept , however, that the Applicant ’ s actions that fall into the grounds in s 69(1) of the PTP Act were a mistake, or that he attempted to rectify his actions. This is because the Applicant continued to provide a taxi service after he knew , from at least 17 September 2025, he was prohibited from doing so. The Applicant ignored the Respondent ’ s decisions to suspend and cancel his taxi licence and suspend his TSP and BSP authorisations. Despite knowing that he could not provide a taxi service, the Applicant continued to do so on multiple occasions in contravention of the PTP Act. The Applicant submits that affirming the Respondent ’ s decisions would deprive him of a livelihood. This factor is not relevant to the determination of whether to vary, suspend or cancel the Applicant ’ s taxi licence. In Lal v Director-General, Department of Transport [2001] NSWADT 74 , the applicant submitted that the cancellation of the applicant ’ s accreditation to operate a public passenger service would cause considerable hardship because the applicant had invested significant financial investment into taxis for over 20 years. At [47], the Tribunal determined that hardship is not a factor which the Tribunal can take into account in determining whether the respondent had made the correct and preferable decision. In relation to the Applicant erroneously raising the doctrine of res judicata , I have considered that the Applicant may have meant that his conduct has been dealt with by the Local Court . That is, a $1,000 fine and a six-month conditional release order for the offences noted above ha ve been imposed on him and therefore no further penalty (i.e. the cancellation of his taxi licence) should be applied to the Applicant. The evidence before the Local Court and the transcript of those proceedings were not before the Tribunal. I have made findings on the basis of the evidence before the Tribunal in relation to the Applicant ’ s conduct , which goes beyond the offences the Local Court dealt with . I have found that this conduct falls within several of the grounds in s 69(1) of the PTP Act. While there are significant penalties for committing offences in the PTP Act, the purpose of the PTP Act is not to penalise service providers. The paramount concern of the PTP Act is the safety of the public. T he fact of a person receiving a conviction and penalty for an offence in the PTP Act do es not prevent the Commissioner (or the Tribunal on review) from proceeding to vary, suspend or cancel licences and authorisations. Such action may be appropriate and consistent with ensuring the safety of the public, in circumstances where a person has been convicted of an offence in the PTP Act. The Applicant submits that the matters giving rise to the decision can be differentiated from instances where there is a “ clear safety concern ” . The Applicant submits that matters relating to drink driving or acts of violence or where the moral culpability by virtue of being wilful acts as opposed to acts driven by ignorance are larger concerns from a community safety perspective. In relation to the Applicant ’ s submissions about the seriousness of his conduct , I note that the penalties in the PTP Act for providing a taxi service without an appropriate taxi licence were described in the Second Reading Speech for Point to Point Transport (Taxis and Hire Vehicles) Bill 2016 “ as severe penalties ” . That supports the emphasis under the framework of the PTP Act on industry accountability, safety and compliance. The penalties for the provision of unauthorised taxi or booking service s was described as “ stiff penalties ” . It was noted in the Second Reading Speech that a uthorisation is important for accountability and public safety. P roviding an unauthorised taxi service or booking service was accordingly described as a “ serious issue ” . While the Applicant ’ s conduct did not involve alcohol use or violence while providing a taxi service, his conduct in deliberately ignoring communications from the Respondent is nevertheless serious. It is a serious matter to fail to comply with the PTP Act and the regulatory scheme designed to ensure public safety. The Applicant ’ s conduct was also not a one-off incident, but involved multiple breaches of the PTP Act and PTP Regulation. I do not agree that the Applicant ’ s conduct was driven by ignorance. This is because by 17 September 2025 he was aware that his taxi licence and TSP and BSP authorisation s were suspended, yet he continued to provide a taxi service in breach of the PTP Act. Holders of taxi licences are required to comply with the statutory regime which is designed to ensure public safety. In this case, the Applicant failed to do so. The Applicant operated a taxi service while unregistered, failed to comply with s 139A Notices to resolve a complaint made against him, and was not responsive to the Respondent ’ s persistent attempts to contact him. Having considered all the evidence and the Applicant ’ s submissions, I am of the view that the correct and preferable decision is to cancel the Applicant ’ s taxi licence. Is suspending the Applicant’s TSP and BSP authorisations the correct and preferable decision? If not, what is the correct and preferable decision? I have found that the Applicant provide d a taxi service while his vehicle registration (T1) was cancelled, while his taxi licence was suspended/cancelled and while his TSP and BSP authorisation s were suspended. I have also found that the Applicant failed to comply with two s 139A Notices . Th is conduct falls within the following grounds in s 45 of the PTP Act for the variation, suspension or cancellation of TSP or BSP authorisation: T he provider does not comply with a standard required to be met for authorisation to provide the service to which the authorisation relates (PTP Act, s 45(a)). T he provider fails to comply with a condition of the authorisation (PTP Act, s 45(b)). The provider fails to comply with t he PTP Act or the PTP Regulation (PTP Act, s 45(c)). Fo r any other reason the Commissioner (or the Tribunal on review) thinks fit (PTP Act, s 45(f)). The Applicant ’ s submissions generally applied to both decisions under review , and I have addressed these submissions as outlined above . None of these submissions persuade me that the Applicant ’ s TSP and BSP authorisations should be reinstated. H olders of TSP and BSP authorisations have oversight responsibility beyond the conditions imposed on holders taxi licences in terms of accountability, safety and compliance . For example, reg 7 of the PTP Regulation requires that providers of a passenger service and booking service must identify and keep a record of several matters including the reasonably foreseeable hazards that could give rise to risks to health and safety to drivers, passengers and other persons in connection with the provision of the service . There is also a duty on a provider to be in a position to ensure that drivers the provider uses or intends to use have not been found guilty of a disqualifying offence for a driver (PTP Regulation, reg 24 (5) ). As was noted by the Tribunal in Archer v Point to Point Transport Commissioner [2025] NSWCATOD 8 at [33], this requires self-awareness and reliability from the individual who seeks to become a provider. Given that I have decided that the Applicant should not hold a taxi licence, and more is expected of an individual in holding a TSP and BSP authorisation, I am of the view that the correct and preferable decision is to cancel the Applicant ’ s TSP and BSP authorisation s . I note that during the period of the Applicant ’ s suspension he has continued to breach the PTP Act by providing a taxi service while unauthorised. This demonstrates a lack of insight by the Applicant into his conduct. It also shows the Applicant ’ s disregard for the regulator and the regulatory scheme designed to uphold the safety of the public. It follows that the correct and preferable decision is to set aside the Respondent ’ s decision to suspend the Applicant ’ s TSP and BSP authorisations and substitute that decision with a decision to cancel these authorisations. Orders The Respondent ’ s decision to cancel the Applicant ’ s taxi licence is affirmed. The Respondent decision to suspend the Applicant ’ s taxi service provider authorisation and booking service provider authorisation is set aside. In substitution for this decision, the Applicant ’ s taxi service provider authorisation and booking service provider authorisation are both cancelled. ********** I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 28 August 2026