Russo v Vicroads [2001] VSC 327

11. On or about 2 August of this year the applicant received a notice of suspension of driver licence pursuant to s.25(3B) of the Road Safety Act. The suspension is to commence on 2 September 2001 and is for a period of six months.

14. The applicant, through his solicitors, sought a review of the decision to suspend his licence. However, VicRoads, in a letter to the applicant's solicitors of 28 August 2001, stated that the applicant had no right to an internal review in this case.

17. I have had the opportunity, since the applicant's papers were handed to me at approximately 11 a.m. this morning, to consider the content of that material and to consider the relevant provisions both of the Road Safety Act and the Road Safety Drivers Regulations 1999. Having done so, the opinions I have formed in the matter are the following:

1. There is no right to an internal review of a suspension pursuant to s.26(3B) because, in my opinion, that suspension is not made pursuant to a decision made by the Corporation such as a suspension pursuant to s.24(2), it is something which occurs by the very operation of s.26(3B). That imposes a mandatory obligation upon the Corporation to suspend a person's licence if the person incurs one or more additional demerit points within the extended 12 month period. There, in my view, is no decision-making process on the part of the Corporation, it is simply required to perform the obligation imposed upon it by the sub-section.

2. As to the applicant's allegation of non-service of the details of the demerit points incurred by him, a matter that is clearly challenged by the Corporation, it is my opinion that it would be inappropriate to grant any application for review in respect of such a matter. In my opinion, no matter of substantial importance is involved in the point and the refusal will impose no substantial injustice upon the applicant. (See s.4 of the Administrative Law Act).

22. The applicant does not challenge the fact that he incurred the demarcation points referred to in p.2 of the notice forming part of Exhibit SR6 to the affidavit of the applicant sworn 30 August 2001. Indeed, when he was served with the s.25(3) notice on or about 24 August 2000 he took the option available to him pursuant to s.25(3A) and elected to extend the demerit point period for 12 months. He was then unfortunate enough to incur one further demerit point, bringing into operation the mandatory provisions of s.26(3B).

25. Whilst the suspension may well cause hardship to the applicant, I do not consider that it can be said that the refusal to grant the order will result in substantial injustice to the applicant. There is a clear distinction between injustice on the one hand and hardship on the other.