Jeray v Information and Privacy Commission [2024] NSWCATAP 239

Jeray v Information and Privacy Commission [2024] NSWCATAP 239

The Tribunal did not have jurisdiction because section 42 of the Government Information (Information Commissioner) Act 2009 (NSW) requires leave of the Supreme Court for proceedings against the Commissioner or staff concerning acts done in execution of the Act, which applied to this administrative review. The correct respondent is the Information and Privacy Commission as the statutory agency making the decision. The access application was invalid as it sought excluded information under the GIPA Act relating to the Commissioner's review functions.

Parties
Applicant: Ivan Jeray; Respondent: Information and Privacy Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal Panel (administrative Review) / Appeal From Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; orders of Tribunal set aside in part and substituted; remainder of appeal dismissed; proceedings dismissed for want of jurisdiction; application for miscellaneous matters dismissed
Legal Topics
Access to Government Information, Excluded Information, Jurisdiction, Correct Respondent in Tribunal Proceedings, Costs in Tribunal
Administrative Law Government Information Practice and Procedure Access to Government Information Excluded Information Jurisdiction Correct Respondent in Tribunal Proceedings Costs in Tribunal

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 5 Authorities cited 48 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ivan Jeray

Applicant

Information and Privacy Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Panel (administrative Review) / Appeal From Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who is the correct respondent in administrative review proceedings under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)?
  2. 2 Does section 42 of the Government Information (Information Commissioner) Act 2009 (NSW) preclude the Tribunal from exercising jurisdiction without leave of the Supreme Court?
  3. 3 Was the access application invalid because it sought excluded information under the GIPA Act?

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not have jurisdiction because section 42 of the Government Information (Information Commissioner) Act 2009 (NSW) requires leave of the Supreme Court for proceedings against the Commissioner or staff concerning acts done in execution of the Act, which applied to this administrative review. The correct respondent is the Information and Privacy Commission as the statutory agency making the decision. The access application was invalid as it sought excluded information under the GIPA Act relating to the Commissioner's review functions.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; orders of Tribunal set aside in part and substituted; remainder of appeal dismissed; proceedings dismissed for want of jurisdiction; application for miscellaneous matters dismissed

Orders

  • Orders 1 and 2 made by the Tribunal on 7 May 2024 set aside
  • Order that the name of the respondent in the proceedings is amended to 'Information and Privacy Commission'