AF v RTA

CITATION:	AF v RTA [2009] NSWADT 274
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT AF RESPONDENT Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW
FILE NUMBER:	073135, 073275
HEARING DATES:	15.04.08, 12.06.08, 15.07.08, 16.07.08, 17.07.08, 09.09.08, 07.11.08, 10.11.08, 26.02.09, 27.02.09, 15.04.09 and 16.04.09.
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	16 April 2009
DATE OF DECISION:	29 October 2009
BEFORE:	Wilson R - Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS:	Summary dismissal of application. Jurisdictional issues. Preliminary determination of substantive issues. Incapacity of an applicant.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998
CASES CITED:	Y v Director General, Department of Education & Training [2001] NSWADT 149 AW v Vice Chancellor, University of Newcastle [2008] NSWADT 86
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT M A Robinson, of Counsel
ORDERS:	1.The respondent’s application that a person be appointed to represent the applicant in the proceedings is dismissed 2. The respondent’s interlocutory applications for preliminary dismissal, summary dismissal and dismissal without substantive determination are dismissed without making findings adverse to either party 3. The proceedings are listed for directions on 03 November 2009 at 11:00 am.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1 The applicant commenced these two proceedings in the Tribunal pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (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 is an application by the respondent for an early dismissal of certain parts of each proceeding, the application being made on several distinct grounds. The applicant has responded to this by bringing her own interlocutory application, namely that the interlocutory application brought by the respondent itself be summarily dismissed. In essence, the applicant’s interlocutory application may be taken as an argument that the respondent’s interlocutory application should not succeed on any of the grounds argued.

2 The respondent has developed clear submissions, and has presented the evidence it wishes to rely upon for the purpose of the interlocutory application in such a way that its submissions are cogently supported. There is no doubt that, on this evidence, findings in favour of the respondent’s submissions are open to the Tribunal. However, the critical question is whether the findings pressed by the respondent ought to be made at this stage on the evidence presented so far. The applicant has raised issues in argument against making the findings sought, some of which, although not always supported by evidence at this stage, have a degree of cogency. In general terms, the applicant has not engaged in disputing the evidence adduced by the respondent but has argued that it does not present the full picture. There are significant facts, she alleges, which should be considered before any final determinations are made and which, if accepted by the Tribunal, could result in ultimate determinations in her favour. The respondent did not accept that this is so, and indicated that it wished to cross-examine the applicant on the evidentiary side of her arguments. This opportunity was…