FFO v Cumberland Council [2022] NSWCATAP 164

FFO v Cumberland Council [2022] NSWCATAP 164

The appeal had no merit because none of FFO's grounds identified an error of law or other appealable error in the refusal of the s 64(1)(d) orders. The Council was entitled to use the information to the extent necessary to prepare its case in the PPIP Act review, the Tribunal had no power or obligation to supervise that preparation in the manner sought, procedural fairness required the Council's instructing officer to have the documents, and it was not inappropriate to refuse medical evidence tendered only after the decision was announced. Because the proposed appeal lacked merit, the application for an extension of time was refused; leave to appeal would also have been refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal From an Interlocutory Decision Refusing Orders Under S 64(1)(d) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw) in Proceedings Under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (nsw) / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Before the Appeal Panel
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused; leave to appeal would have been refused; costs submissions timetable set.
Legal Topics
['internal Appeals' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'non Disclosure Orders' 'open Justice' 'procedural Fairness']
['administrative Law' 'privacy Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['internal Appeals' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'non Disclosure Orders' 'open Justice' 'procedural Fairness']

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

Internal Appeal From an Interlocutory Decision Refusing Orders Under S 64(1)(d) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw) in Proceedings Under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (nsw) / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Before the Appeal Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended for FFO to file an internal appeal that was one day out of time.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted from an interlocutory decision concerning prohibition or restriction of disclosure.' 'Whether the Tribunal at first instance erred in refusing orders under s 64(1)(d) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).' 'Whether FFO was denied procedural fairness when the Tribunal declined to receive medical reports after announcing its decision.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal had no merit because none of FFO's grounds identified an error of law or other appealable error in the refusal of the s 64(1)(d) orders. The Council was entitled to use the information to the extent necessary to prepare its case in the PPIP Act review, the Tribunal had no power or obligation to supervise that preparation in the manner sought, procedural fairness required the Council's instructing officer to have the documents, and it was not inappropriate to refuse medical evidence tendered only after the decision was announced. Because the proposed appeal lacked merit, the application for an extension of time was refused; leave to appeal would also have been refused.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused; leave to appeal would have been refused; costs submissions timetable set.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time within which to file an appeal is refused.' 'Should Cumberland Council wish to make submissions with respect to costs, those submissions should be filed in the Tribunal and served upon FFO within 14 days of the publication of these reasons. Those submissions should include...