Sassine v Commissioner for Fair Trading, Department of Customer Service

Medium Neutral Citation: Sassine v Commissioner for Fair Trading, Department of Customer Service [2026] NSWSC 38

Hearing dates: On the papers, submissions dated 5 February 2026

Date of orders: 6 February 2026

Decision date: 06 February 2026

Jurisdiction: Common Law

Before: Price AJA (in chambers)

Decision: (1) The decision of the defendant to cancel contractor licence 41644 be quashed.
(2) The matter be remitted to the defendant to be determined according to law.
(3) The defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs as agreed or assessed.
(4) The summons filed on 7 February 2025 be otherwise dismissed.

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – denial of procedural fairness – whether consent orders should be made

Legislation Cited: Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69

Cases Cited: Kovalev v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1999) 100 FCR 323; [1999] FCA 557
Lou v IAG Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance (2019) 101 NSWLR 606; [2019] NSWCA 319
LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2024) 280 CLR 321; [2024] HCA 12
SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 228 CLR 152; [2006] HCA 63

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: Tony Sassine (Plaintiff)
Commissioner for Fair Trading, Department of Customer Service (Defendant)

Representation: Counsel:
A Sivanathan (Plaintiff)
T Bagley (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Foteades Freeman Cohen (Plaintiff)
Department of Customer Service (NSW), Legal Enforcement (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2025/50180

Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

1. Price AJA: These proceedings involve an application by way of summons filed on 7 February 2025 by the plaintiff, Tony Sassine, for judicial review under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) of the decision made on 8 November 2024 by the defendant, the Commissioner for Fair Trading, Department of Customer Service, to cancel the plaintiff’s contractor licence 41644 (“the plaintiff’s licence”).

2. The plaintiff’s complaint is founded on the principal ground that there had been a denial of procedural fairness by the defendant in “failing to give notice of or an opportunity [to the plaintiff] to comment on material relied upon” to make the decision to cancel the plaintiff’s licence.

3. The plaintiff and defendant have provided the Court with consent orders filed on 5 February 2026 which seek to quash the defendant’s decision to cancel the plaintiff’s licence; remit the matter back to the defendant to be determined according to law and for the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs as agreed or assessed. The consent orders were accompanied by written submissions prepared jointly by the plaintiff’s and defendant’s counsel.

4. It is sufficient to state having read the plaintiff’s affidavit sworn on 7 February 2025 and the submissions, there is a proper basis for the defendant’s concession that there was a denial of procedural fairness and that denial was a jurisdictional error as it was material to the decision: Kovalev v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1999) 100 FCR 323; [1999] FCA 557 at [11] (French J); Lou v IAG Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance (2019) 101 NSWLR 606; [2019] NSWCA 319 at [44] (Payne JA, Gleeson JA agreeing); LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2024) 280 CLR 321; [2024] HCA 12 at [7], [12]-[15] (Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ). This arises from the plaintiff not being given the opportunity to comment on adverse material provided by the liquidator of Capital Developments Pty Ltd (in liquidation) to the defendant, nor was the plaintiff informed of the receipt of that adverse material by the defendant.

5. The adverse material received from the liquidator was relied upon by the defendant to cancel the plaintiff’s licence.

6. As the High Court said in SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 228 CLR 152; [2006] HCA 63 at [32] (Gleeson CJ, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon JJ):

“In [Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 576] the Full Court rightly said:

‘It is a fundamental principle that where the rules of procedural fairness apply to a decision-making process, the party liable to be directly affected by the decision is to be given the opportunity of being heard. That would ordinarily require the party affected to be given the opportunity of ascertaining the relevant issues and to be informed of the nature and content of adverse material.’” (emphasis in original and footnote omitted)

7. Accordingly, the Court makes, in accordance with the Short Minutes, the following orders:

8. The decision of the defendant to cancel contractor licence 41644 be quashed.

9. The matter be remitted to the defendant to be determined according to law.

10. The defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs as agreed or assessed.

11. The summons filed on 7 February 2025 be otherwise dismissed.

**********