Civic Compliance – The Corporation Argument. – Draft –

Tuesday , 10, November 2015 Leave a comment


“The creation of a statutory corporation is an act of the legislature, not of the Governor-General in Council acting under s 64 of the Constitution.”

Therefore it is a legislative decision, not one of the Executive.

192 UNSW Law Journal Volume 28(1) brought for the enforcement of such a contract.29 That is, it is well recognised that a statutory corporation has a legal existence separate and distinct from the executive.

(2) To avoid doubt, the Crown is a body corporate for the purposes of this Act and the regulations. TRANSPORT INTEGRATION ACT 2010 – SECT 5 Act binds the Crown

Queensland Rail High Court decision held State based Corporations are Constitutional “Trading” Corporations. [2015] HCA 11 8 April 2015.

In light of the Queensland Rail decision, it would suggest Civic Compliance is a Constitutional “Trading” Corporation.

We can re-visit Crabbe v Queensland Police Service [2013] QDC 122 (13 May 2013) at [10]-[11] where in that case it was ruled as speed camera’s are not used in trade it does not apply.

There may be potential to re-argue this point that as 78% of the Fine Revenue goes to the private corporation behind Civic Compliance and not the Government and that they are a Trading Corporation, that they are now used in trade and Sections 18GB and 18GH may now apply.

 

Relevant Legislation

  1. TRANSPORT INTEGRATION ACT 2010 – SECT 5 Act binds the Crown
  2. NATIONAL MEASUREMENT ACT 1960 – SECT 18GB

Relevant Case Law

  1. Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal,
    Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Queensland Rail
    [2015] HCA 11
    8 April 2015
    B63/2013
  2. Crabbe v Queensland Police Service [2013] QDC 122 (13 May 2013)


%d bloggers like this: