AF v Roads and Traffic Authority - [2011] NSWADT 69

Administrative Decisions Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: AF v Roads and Traffic Authority [2011] NSWADT 69
Hearing dates: 15 March 2010, 16 March 2010, 10 August 2010 and 11 August 2010
Decision date: 05 April 2011
Before: R Wilson, Judicial Member
Decision:
1. Summonses are to issue to witnesses to attend and give evidence in accordance with paragraphs 28 to 31 inclusive of these reasons.
2. A summons is to issue to Lizanne Bennett to attend and give evidence in accordance with paragraphs 39 to 43 inclusive of these reasons.
3. A summons is to issue to produce documents to the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers Australia in accordance with paragraphs 39 to 43 of these reasons, the respondent to be given first access to any documents so produced.
4. Both proceedings are listed for further directions at 02:00pm on Thursday 05 May 2011, the directions hearing to be limited to procedural steps to prepare the proceedings for final hearing. The parties are granted leave to apply to the Registry to vary this date should it be inconvenient and if such application be made the parties should liaise to ascertain mutually convenient dates.
5. No further order.

Catchwords: Application for issue of summons: legal test of apparent relevance.
Legislation Cited: Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 ; Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002; Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Cases Cited: AF v Healthquest [2009] NSWADTAP 42
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: AF (Applicant)
Roads and Traffic Authority (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel
M Robinson (Respondent)
AF (Applicant, in person)
Mallesons Stephen Jacques (Respondent)

File Number(s): 073135 and 073275

reasons for decision

The applicant commenced these two proceedings in the Tribunal pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 and the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (the Privacy legislation) alleging a series of acts done by the respondent in breach thereof. Neither matter has yet reached a substantive hearing. Presently before the Tribunal for determination are a number of interlocutory applications brought by the applicant following unsuccessful interlocutory applications brought by the respondent at an earlier stage.

The materials adduced by the parties are quite voluminous and have been marked as exhibits AB1 to AB9 and RB1 to RB4 so as to distinguish them from materials adduced in the substantive matter and the respondent's earlier interlocutory application.

For present purposes it is sufficient to regard the substantive proceedings as involving, when considered together, 7 specific complaints or claims by the applicant. The factual basis of each complaint follows after a summary statement of the background facts.

It is common ground that the applicant at material times was employed by the respondent during the course of which two significant events occurred. First the applicant had some time away from her employment by reason of a work related illness and this gave rise to a worker's compensation claim which was processed administratively as time went by. Secondly, the applicant returned to work and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading AF v Roads and Traffic Authority

Details

AGLC: AF v Roads and Traffic Authority [2011] NSWADT 69
Case: [2011] NSWADT 69
Decision Date: 05 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an application for the issuance of summonses to various witnesses and a document production order in a proceeding brought by AF against the Roads and Traffic Authority. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, sitting in its Equity Division. The legal dispute revolved around whether the evidence provided by the applicants was relevant and necessary for the determination of the case.

The court was tasked with determining whether the proposed evidence met the legal standard for apparent relevance, which is a less stringent threshold than proving relevance on the balance of probabilities. The applicants argued that the evidence was necessary to support their claims and that the witnesses were available and willing to testify. The Roads and Traffic Authority contested the application, arguing that the evidence was not relevant to the issues at hand and that the witnesses were not necessary to assist the court in determining the case.

After considering the arguments of both parties, the court found that the evidence presented by the applicants was indeed of apparent relevance to the issues in the case. The court noted that the evidence was necessary to assist in determining the factual matrix of the case and that the witnesses were available and willing to testify. The court further found that the document production order was appropriate given the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the court issued the summonses and document production order as requested by the applicants.

In summary, the court issued summonses to the witnesses and a document production order in accordance with the applicants' requests, finding that the evidence was of apparent relevance to the case. The proceedings were listed for further directions to prepare the case for final hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Summonses are to issue to witnesses to attend and give evidence in accordance with paragraphs 28 to 31 inclusive of these reasons.

2. A summons is to issue to Lizanne Bennett to attend and give evidence in accordance with paragraphs 39 to 43 inclusive of these reasons.

3. A summons is to issue to produce documents to the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers Australia in accordance with paragraphs 39 to 43 of these reasons, the respondent to be given first access to any documents so produced.

4. Both proceedings are listed for further directions at 02:00pm on Thursday 05 May 2011, the directions hearing to be limited to procedural steps to prepare the proceedings for final hearing. The parties are granted leave to apply to the Registry to vary this date should it be inconvenient and if such application be made the parties should liaise to ascertain mutually convenient dates.

5. No further order.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	AF v Roads and Traffic Authority [2011] NSWADT 69
Hearing dates:	15 March 2010, 16 March 2010, 10 August 2010 and 11 August 2010
Decision date:	05 April 2011
Before:	R Wilson, Judicial Member
Decision:	1. Summonses are to issue to witnesses to attend and give evidence in accordance with paragraphs 28 to 31 inclusive of these reasons. 2. A summons is to issue to Lizanne Bennett to attend and give evidence in accordance with paragraphs 39 to 43 inclusive of these reasons. 3. A summons is to issue to produce documents to the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers Australia in accordance with paragraphs 39 to 43 of these reasons, the respondent to be given first access to any documents so produced. 4. Both proceedings are listed for further directions at 02:00pm on Thursday 05 May 2011, the directions hearing to be limited to procedural steps to prepare the proceedings for final hearing. The parties are granted leave to apply to the Registry to vary this date should it be inconvenient and if such application be made the parties should liaise to ascertain mutually convenient dates. 5. No further order.
Catchwords:	Application for issue of summons: legal test of apparent relevance.
Legislation Cited:	Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 ; Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002; Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Cases Cited:	AF v Healthquest [2009] NSWADTAP 42
Category:	Interlocutory applications
Parties:	AF (Applicant) Roads and Traffic Authority (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel M Robinson (Respondent) AF (Applicant, in person) Mallesons Stephen Jacques (Respondent)
File Number(s):	073135 and 073275