FCZ v Crown Solicitor [2022] NSWCATEN 3

FCZ v Crown Solicitor [2022] NSWCATEN 3

The Applicant did not adduce evidence capable of establishing that ISLHD breached order 2 made on 2 November 2021 or otherwise failed to comply with its legal obligations, and there was no evidentiary foundation for finding that the Respondent aided, abetted, encouraged or caused any breach. The Respondent's alleged omissions and responses concerning missing documents were therefore not capable of amounting to contempt under either s 73(1) or s 73(5) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), so the referral application was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Referral of Alleged Contempt to the Supreme Court Under S 73(1) or S 73(5) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw) / Enforcement Jurisdiction; Hearing of Referral Application
Outcome
Application dismissed; non-disclosure order made.
Legal Topics
['referral of Alleged Contempt to Supreme Court' 'contempt in the Face or Hearing of the Tribunal' 'alleged Breach of Tribunal Order' 'production of Documents Under S 58 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (nsw)' 'health Records Access']
['practice and Procedure' 'contempt' 'administrative Law' 'privacy and Health Records'] ['referral of Alleged Contempt to Supreme Court' 'contempt in the Face or Hearing of the Tribunal' 'alleged Breach of Tribunal Order' 'production of Documents Under S 58 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (nsw)' 'health Records Access']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Referral of Alleged Contempt to the Supreme Court Under S 73(1) or S 73(5) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw) / Enforcement Jurisdiction; Hearing of Referral Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the evidence was capable of establishing that the Respondent committed contempt in the face or hearing of the Tribunal under s 73(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).' 'Whether the evidence was capable of establishing that the Respondent committed contempt by aiding, abetting or encouraging ISLHD to breach order 2 made on 2 November 2021, for the purposes of s 73(5) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).' 'Whether the alleged failure to provide information about missing documents or to ensure ISLHD produced further material could amount to contempt.' 'Whether the referral application should be referred to the Supreme Court.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant did not adduce evidence capable of establishing that ISLHD breached order 2 made on 2 November 2021 or otherwise failed to comply with its legal obligations, and there was no evidentiary foundation for finding that the Respondent aided, abetted, encouraged or caused any breach. The Respondent's alleged omissions and responses concerning missing documents were therefore not capable of amounting to contempt under either s 73(1) or s 73(5) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), so the referral application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; non-disclosure order made.

Orders

  • ["Pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) the disclosure of the names of the Applicant and the Applicant's representative is prohibited." 'The application filed on 10 December 20221 seeking the referral to the Supreme Court under s 73(1) or s 73(5) of the Civil and...