Restitution and comparative merit in transport permits bar reliance on experience gained under a wrong order.

Experience gained under a permit later set aside could not be counted when the transport authority reconsidered rival applications after remand, because the relevant date for comparative assessment was the date of fresh consideration. The principle that acts of the court should not prejudice a litigant was applied, together with restitution, so the parties had to be restored to the position they would have occupied but for the erroneous order. An applicant could not retain an advantage obtained under a wrong order and use it against a rival in the same proceeding. The challenge to the appellate order failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the experience gained by an applicant while operating a vehicle under a permit that was later set aside could be taken into account when the transport authority reconsiders the permit applications.

Analysis: The material date for assessing the comparative qualifications of applicants was the date on which the Regional Transport Authority dealt with the applications after remand. The principle that acts of the Court should not prejudice a litigant was applied, and the doctrine of restitution was recognised as requiring the parties to be restored to the position they would have occupied but for the erroneous order. An applicant could not be allowed to gain advantage from a permit obtained under a wrong order and then rely on that advantage in the same proceeding to the detriment of the rival applicant.

Conclusion: The experience acquired under the permit that was subsequently set aside could not be treated as a qualifying factor in the same proceeding. The challenge to the appellate order failed.

---