VZ v University of Newcastle [2009] NSWADT 17 (27 January 2009)

Last Updated: 6 February 2009

NEW SOUTH WALES ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TRIBUNAL

CITATION:
VZ v University of Newcastle [2009] NSWADT 17


DIVISION:
GENERAL DIVISION

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
VZ

RESPONDENT
University of Newcastle



FILE NUMBERS:
063235

HEARING DATES:
21 February 2007, 4 - 5 October 2007, 3 - 5 March 2008, 8 April 2008

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:
8 April 2008



DATE OF DECISION:
27 January 2009

BEFORE:
Wilson R - Judicial Member





LEGISLATION CITED:
Freedom of Information Act 1989

CASES CITED:


TEXTS CITED:


APPLICATION:


MATTER FOR DECISION:



REPRESENTATION:
APPLICANT
VZ
RESPONDENT
University of Newcastle


ORDERS:
The decision under review is affirmed.


Reasons for Decision:

REASONS FOR DECISION

1 The applicant commenced these proceedings pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1989 seeking a review of a determination made by the respondent under that Act. The proceedings were prepared and heard together with other litigation between the parties in the Tribunal (proceedings 063072), although as a separate matter.

2 During the course of the hearing it became common ground that the applicant had been granted access to all of the documents which had initially been the subject of exemption claims (transcript 04.10.07 pages 10 ff). The consequence is that there is no issue for the Tribunal to determine that has any utility as far as the applicant is concerned.

3 The respondent however, does not concede that its exemption claims are without merit. It has granted access to the applicant in the exercise of its discretionary powers in an endeavour to resolve the proceedings expeditiously. This is a commendable course for respondents to take when the circumstances are apposite.

4 In these circumstances, the correct and preferable determination is to affirm the decision under review.

5 At the directions hearing on 08.04.08 the applicant sought an adjournment of the proceedings to enable him to have access to documents returnable upon a subpoena issue by him in other proceedings against the respondent in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The documents sought by this subpoena relate to a separate grievance that the applicant has made with the respondent. The adjournment application was refused on that day, the Tribunal indicating that it would publish its reasons in the course of its final decision. The adjournment was refused as the respondent has allowed access to all documents the subject of the proceedings in the Tribunal. Further, the applicant argued that perusal of the documents would assist him in relation to a further privacy matter that he had pending in the Tribunal. Even if this be so, it has no relevance to the current proceedings under consideration. Consequently, there is no utility in granting the adjournment.

6 The Tribunal notes that the applicant, should he wish to do so, will seek the respondent’s consideration of amendment to his records by separate application.