LZ v Office of the Protective Commissioner [2009] NSWADT 169

LZ v Office of the Protective Commissioner [2009] NSWADT 169

The application for review, insofar as it concerned events 5, 9 and 12 and related internal reviews, was lodged within the 60 day period because the Ombudsman's letter was accepted as posted on 10 November 2006 and the application was lodged on 11 January 2007. However, most determinations were not reviewable because the respondent said it had provided all documents it held or that other documents were not located, which raised only adequacy of search. The Tribunal had jurisdiction only to review the determination notified on 5 October 2005 refusing access to correspondence between Ms Parkinson and the respondent on claimed personal affairs exemption grounds.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of Determinations Under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 / Remitted Matter Determined on the Papers as to Jurisdiction and Time; Matter to Be Listed for Further Directions
Outcome
The Tribunal concluded that it had jurisdiction to review only the respondent's determination not to provide access to correspondence between Ms Parkinson and the respondent, as notified on 5 October 2005, and that the matter should proceed to directions for determination of the substantive issues.
Legal Topics
['access to Documents' 'adequacy of Search' 'reviewable Decision' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'extension of Time']
['administrative Law' 'freedom of Information'] ['access to Documents' 'adequacy of Search' 'reviewable Decision' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'extension of Time']

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 Determinations Under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 / Remitted Matter Determined on the Papers as to Jurisdiction and Time; Matter to Be Listed for Further Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Which access applications or determinations were the subject of the application for review.' 'Whether the application for review was lodged within the 60 day period prescribed by s54 of the Freedom of Information Act 1989.' 'Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review determinations where the respondent stated that it had provided access to all documents it held falling within the request.' 'Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review the refusal to provide access to correspondence between Ms Parkinson and the respondent.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for review, insofar as it concerned events 5, 9 and 12 and related internal reviews, was lodged within the 60 day period because the Ombudsman's letter was accepted as posted on 10 November 2006 and the application was lodged on 11 January 2007. However, most determinations were not reviewable because the respondent said it had provided all documents it held or that other documents were not located, which raised only adequacy of search. The Tribunal had jurisdiction only to review the determination notified on 5 October 2005 refusing access to correspondence between Ms Parkinson and the respondent on claimed personal affairs exemption grounds.

Court Disposition

The Tribunal concluded that it had jurisdiction to review only the respondent's determination not to provide access to correspondence between Ms Parkinson and the respondent, as notified on 5 October 2005, and that the matter should proceed to directions for determination of the substantive issues.

Orders

  • ['The matter is to be listed for further directions.']