PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Fiji Land Transport Appeals Tribunal
You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Fiji Land Transport Appeals Tribunal >> 2017 >> [2017] FJLTAT 5

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

George Transport Ltd v Land Transport Authority [2017] FJLTAT 5; Appeal 59.2014 (13 January 2017)

Land Transport Appeals Tribunal
Sitting At Nausori Appeal # 59 of 2014


Between: George Transport Limited
Dee Cees Services Limited

[Appellants]


And: Land Transport Authority
[Respondent]


Tacirua Transport Limited
[Interested Party]


Appearances:
For the Appellant: Mr F. Haniff
For LTA: Mr G. Stephens.
For Tacirua Transport Limited: Mr V. Kapadia


Judgment


Introduction


The Appellants, George Transport Limited and Dee Cees Services Limited have appealed the decision (dated 12th December 2014) of the LTA where the Authority following a hearing dated 29th July 2014 and 27th November 2014 for an application dated 4th December 2013 resolved and approved the trips the Interested Party had applied for.


The Tribunal has noted that all parties to the proceedings have been served and have notification of this matter.


Grounds of Appeal


The Appellant’s grounds for appeal are as follows:


  1. “The LTA failed to give any or any adequate reason(s) for its decision to amend TTCL’s Road Route Licence 12/6/24 for the additional trips to and from Ram Lakha Singh Road via the Kings Road.
  2. The LTA failed to explain how it arrived at the decision to amend TTCL’s Road Route Licence 12/6/24 for the additional trips to and from Ram Lakha Singh Road via the Kings Road.
  3. The decision of the LTA was procedurally flawed because it did not consider George Transport Limited’s (“GTL”) application to provide the same service as that approved by LTA for TTCL when the additional trips fell into GTL’s area of operation.
  4. The LTA acted unfairly and unreasonably by failing to hear GTL’s application to provide the same service as that sought by TTCL; alternatively
  5. The LTA acted unfairly and unreasonably when it heard TTCL’s application without first affording the opportunity to GTL to apply to provide the same service given that the application by TTCL’s application fell into GTL’s area of operation.

  6. PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
    URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJLTAT/2017/5.html