Page v Southern Cross University [2016] NSWCATAD 199

Page v Southern Cross University [2016] NSWCATAD 199

The Tribunal followed the prior considered ruling in National Tertiary Education Union v Southern Cross University [2015] NSWCATAD 151 that sections 65 and 66 processing charge discounts are non-cumulative, because the Applicant did not show that ruling was plainly wrong. The Respondent had undertaken work on the access application and was entitled to require an advance deposit under section 68. The Respondent complied with the GIPA Act by giving notice of the required deposit, the amount and time for payment, and the Applicant failed to pay within time despite awareness of the consequences; accordingly the decision to refuse to deal further under section 70 was justified.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of Decisions Under the Government Information (public Access) Act 2009 (nsw) / External Review by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales
Outcome
The decisions under review are affirmed.
Legal Topics
['processing Charge' 'advance Deposit' 'discounted Processing Charge' 'refusal to Deal With Access Application' 'gipa Act Review']
['administrative Law' 'government Information'] ['processing Charge' 'advance Deposit' 'discounted Processing Charge' 'refusal to Deal With Access Application' 'gipa Act Review']

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 Review of Decisions Under the Government Information (public Access) Act 2009 (nsw) / External Review by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicant was entitled to a reduction in processing charges under section 66 of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) in addition to a reduction under section 65.' "Whether the Respondent's decision to require an advance deposit under section 68 of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) should be affirmed." "Whether the Respondent's decision to refuse to deal further with the access application under section 70 of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) should be affirmed." 'Whether a previous review by the Information Commissioner of a decision to impose an advance deposit prevents the Tribunal from reviewing that decision on review of a decision to refuse to deal further.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal followed the prior considered ruling in National Tertiary Education Union v Southern Cross University [2015] NSWCATAD 151 that sections 65 and 66 processing charge discounts are non-cumulative, because the Applicant did not show that ruling was plainly wrong. The Respondent had undertaken work on the access application and was entitled to require an advance deposit under section 68. The Respondent complied with the GIPA Act by giving notice of the required deposit, the amount and time for payment, and the Applicant failed to pay within time despite awareness of the consequences; accordingly the decision to refuse to deal further under section 70 was justified.

Court Disposition

The decisions under review are affirmed.

Orders

  • ['The decisions under review are affirmed.']