Johnston v Department of Education and Communities [2013] NSWADT 132

Johnston v Department of Education and Communities [2013] NSWADT 132

The application for review of the decisions that the original and amended access applications were invalid was lodged more than 8 weeks after notice of those decisions and was therefore out of time. The applicant did not establish a reasonable excuse for the delay, so time was not extended. The refusal to refund the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for External Review of Decisions Under the Government Information (public Access) Act 2009 / Hearing of Application; Decision Reserved and Delivered
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['validity of Access Applications' 'time Limits for Tribunal Review' 'extension of Time' 'refund of Application Fee' 'reviewable Decisions' 'processing Charges']
['administrative Law' 'government Information and Public Access'] ['validity of Access Applications' 'time Limits for Tribunal Review' 'extension of Time' 'refund of Application Fee' 'reviewable Decisions' 'processing Charges']

Source-derived case record

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 External Review of Decisions Under the Government Information (public Access) Act 2009 / Hearing of Application; Decision Reserved and Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the application for review of the respondent's decisions that the original and amended access applications were invalid was lodged within the time prescribed by s 101(1) of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009." 'Whether time should be extended under s 101(4) of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009.' 'Whether a decision to refuse to refund an application fee is a reviewable decision under s 80(j) or s 80(k) of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for review of the decisions that the original and amended access applications were invalid was lodged more than 8 weeks after notice of those decisions and was therefore out of time. The applicant did not establish a reasonable excuse for the delay, so time was not extended. The refusal to refund the $30 application fee was not a reviewable decision because the GIPA Act distinguishes an application fee from a processing charge and the respondent had not imposed any processing charge. The Tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application dismissed.']