Sections 48, 49 and 50 of the Fines Act 1996 ("the Act") are in the following terms:
Division 5 - Annulment of penalty notice enforcement orders
48 Applications for annulment of orders
(1) An application may be made by or on behalf of any person for the annulment of a penalty notice enforcement order made against the person under Division 4.
(2) (Repealed)
(3) An application for annulment is to be made in writing to the Commissioner.
(4) (Repealed)
(5) A person may not, except with the leave of the Commissioner, make more than one application in relation to the same matter.
(6) The regulations may make provision for or with respect to applications under this section (including application fees).
49 Determination of applications by Commissioner
(1) When dealing with an application for annulment, the Commissioner:
(a) must annul the penalty notice enforcement order if the Commissioner is satisfied that:
(i) the person was not aware that a penalty notice had been issued until the enforcement order was served, but only if the application was made within a reasonable time after that service, or
(ii) the person was otherwise hindered by accident, illness, misadventure or other cause from taking action in relation to the penalty notice, but only if the application was made within a reasonable time after the person ceased being so hindered, or
(iii) the penalty reminder notice was, or both the penalty notice and the penalty reminder notice, in relation to a particular offence were, returned as being undelivered to its sender after being sent to the person at the person's recently reported address (within the meaning of section 126A) and notice of the enforcement order was served on the person at a different address, and
(b) may annul the penalty notice enforcement order if:
(i) the Commissioner is satisfied that a question or doubt has arisen as to the person's liability for the penalty or other amount concerned, but only if the person had no previous opportunity to obtain a review of that liability, or
(ii) having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner is satisfied that there is other just cause why the application should be granted.
(2) The Commissioner must not annul a penalty notice enforcement order under subsection (1) (b) (ii) if doing so is not permitted under, or would circumvent the restrictions in, subsection (1) (a) or (b) (i).
(3) If the Commissioner annuls a penalty notice enforcement order under subsection (1) (a), the Commissioner must refer the matter to the Local Court unless:
(a) the person concerned does not dispute the person's liability to pay the amount payable under the penalty notice, and
(b) that amount was paid to the Commissioner at the time of making the application for the annulment of the order.
(3A) For the avoidance of doubt, payment of the full amount under a penalty notice under subsection (3) results in there being no further liability for further proceedings for the offence to which the notice relates.
(3B) If the Commissioner annuls a penalty notice enforcement order under subsection (1) (b), the Commissioner must refer the matter to the Local Court. Section 51 provides that the Local Court is to hear and determine the alleged offence as if no penalty notice enforcement order had been made.
(4) Applications for annulment are to be dealt with by the Commissioner in the absence of the parties, unless the Commissioner otherwise determines.
(5) The Commissioner must give notice of the determination of an application for annulment to all parties interested or concerned.
(6) The regulations may make provision for or with respect to the practice and procedure of the Commissioner when dealing with applications for annulment.
(7) The Commissioner may, but is not required to, refund any application fee for an application for an annulment that is successful.
(8) For the avoidance of doubt, the Commissioner may grant an application for annulment (and annul the penalty notice enforcement order) on the ground that the person was not aware that a penalty notice had been issued until the enforcement order was served even if section 126A (1) permitted the issue and service of a penalty reminder notice in relation to a particular offence referred to in the enforcement order or section 126A (2) permitted the making of the penalty notice enforcement order (or both).
49A Review of penalty notice before annulment
…
50 Appeal against refusal of application by Commissioner
(1) If the Commissioner refuses an application for annulment, the applicant may, not later than 28 days after notice is given of the refusal, lodge an application in writing with a registrar of the Local Court to have the original application determined by the Local Court.
(2) The relevant registrar of the Local Court must, as soon as possible, give written notification to the applicant and the parties of the date, time and place on or at which the application is to be determined.
(3) An application under this section may be determined by the Local Court in accordance with this Division and the Local Court may make any decision about the application that the Commissioner may have made.
(4) The Local Court may proceed to determine an application despite any omission or error in the notice referred to in subsection (2) or its non-service if:
(a) the Local Court is satisfied that the applicant and the parties interested and concerned had knowledge of the date, time and place on or at which the application was to be determined and were not prejudiced by the omission, error or non-service, or
(b) the Local Court is satisfied that the applicant is avoiding service of the notice or cannot, after reasonable search and inquiry, be found.
(5) The regulations may make provision for or with respect to applications under this section (including application fees).
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.
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.
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).
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.
On 5 June 2014 the matter again came before the Magistrate who concluded (inter alia) as follows (commencing at T4 L11):
"In the present case Mr Streater received those five penalty notices and could have, at the outset taken action to have them dealt with by the Court, but he did not do that. He received the enforcement orders and in two of the matters he filed an application for an annulment. One was well out of time and the other matter he failed to follow up with a request made by the State Debt Recovery Office. Thereafter further enforcement action took place in relation to his driver's licence.
…
In summary I find that Mr Streater has not complied with the provisions set out in Part Div 5 of the Fines Act. I find that he has not been denied natural justice. I further find that in the circumstances the Local Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the application to annul the five lawfully imposed enforcement orders or indeed to order any lifting with regard to the applicant's licence suspension.
The plaintiff appealed to this Court, pursuant to Part 50 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, against the Magistrate's decision.
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:
"The material initially available to the SDRO (the transcript of the hearing of 5 June 2014 and the written submissions of Mr Streater) suggested that Mr Streater had not denied receiving notification of the refusal. However, when the transcript of an earlier hearing became available on 18 September 2015 it became clear that Mr Streater had denied receiving notification. The denial may not have been clear to the learned Magistrate as it was made in the midst of a number of more complex constitutional arguments made by Mr Streater who was unrepresented during the hearing.
It also appears that the learned Magistrate may have been inadvertently led into error by submissions made by the police prosecutor. The submissions stated that Mr Streater had not denied receiving the penalty notice or enforcement orders. Mr Streater had denied receiving the notices and orders and was not given an opportunity to respond to those submissions.
The SDRO does not concede that Mr Streater's appeal was within time or that he failed to receive notification. However, the SDRO does accept that he was entitled to have his claim determined and reasons provided for that determination.
In the circumstances it is respectfully suggested that the matter be remitted to the Local Court so that a determination can be made as to jurisdiction to entertain the appeal with the provision of reasons, if appropriate.
The SDRO respectfully understands that it is for the Court to determine claims not the parties, even where there is agreement. The SDRO does not seek to be presumptuous about the correct disposition of the appeal. However, in the interests of justice, the costs of both parties and in order to save valuable court time, the parties have drafted orders that reflect the common ground between the parties.
The SDRO respectfully requests that the court make the orders outlined in the consent orders."
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.
Accordingly, for these reasons, I make the following orders:
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The hearing date of 19 October 2015 before this Court is vacated.
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. The matter is remitted to the Local Court to be dealt with according to law.
5. Each party is to pay its own costs of these proceedings.
[2]
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: 16 October 2015