LZ v Protective Commissioner [2004] NSWADT 164

LZ v Protective Commissioner [2004] NSWADT 164

The application for review was dismissed because, after the review was commenced, the Protective Commissioner provided copies of all documents it had located in response to the applicant's FOI requests, produced further items identified during the hearing, responded to the Tribunal's directions about the remaining documents, and thereby fully satisfied the underlying access application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of a Freedom of Information Act 1989 Access Decision / Principal Matter; Final Decision
Outcome
Application for review dismissed.
Legal Topics
['access to Documents' 'deemed Refusal' 'substantial and Unreasonable Diversion of Agency Resources' 'inspection and Photocopying of Documents']
['administrative Law' 'freedom of Information'] ['access to Documents' 'deemed Refusal' 'substantial and Unreasonable Diversion of Agency Resources' 'inspection and Photocopying of Documents']

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 a Freedom of Information Act 1989 Access Decision / Principal Matter; Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent agency had failed or refused to respond to the applicant's request for access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1989." "Whether providing photocopies of all requested documents could be refused on the basis that the work involved would substantially and unreasonably divert the agency's resources." 'Whether the application for review should be dismissed because the respondent had provided the applicant with the documents requested and addressed the remaining identified documents.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for review was dismissed because, after the review was commenced, the Protective Commissioner provided copies of all documents it had located in response to the applicant's FOI requests, produced further items identified during the hearing, responded to the Tribunal's directions about the remaining documents, and thereby fully satisfied the underlying access application.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application for review dismissed.']