ALZ v SafeWork NSW (No 3)

Link copied
Case Copied 17 min read

Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: ALZ v SafeWork NSW (No 3) [2016] NSWCATAD 156
Hearing dates:On the papers
Date of orders: 15 July 2016
Decision date: 15 July 2016
Jurisdiction:Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: S Montgomery, Senior Member
Decision:

(1) The Applicant's application that I disqualify myself from further dealing with her applications is refused.
(2) The matters are relisted for further directions at 9.30 am on 29 August 2016.

Catchwords: PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – application for disqualification - actual bias - apprehended bias -
Legislation Cited: Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998
Cases Cited: ALZ v SafeWork NSW (No 2) [2016] NSWCATAD 121
ALZ v WorkCover NSW [2015] NSWCATAD 241
ALZ v WorkCover NSW [2015] NSWCATAP 138
Attorney General of NSW v Lucy Klewer [2003] NSWCA 295
Barakat v Goritsas (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 36
Ebner v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy; Clenae Pty Ltd v ANZ Banking Group [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337
Khera v Law Society of New South Wales (LSD) [2005] NSWADTAP 29
McGovern v Ku-ring-gai Council [2008] NSWCA 209
Singh v Legal Aid Commission [2014] NSWCATAD 28
Turner v Commissioner, Corrective Services NSW [2016] NSWCATAD 15
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: ALZ (Applicant)
SafeWork NSW (Respondent)
Representation: ALZ (Applicant in person)
Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondent)
File Number(s):123291, 133003, 133158

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. The Applicant brought this application requesting that I disqualify myself from further dealing with three of her applications. The Respondent in each of these matters is SafeWork NSW. I am not aware of whether or not the Respondent has been advised of this request but in any event it is not necessary for the Respondent to oppose or agree with an application of this nature.

  2. The Applicant’s application that I recuse myself arises from my recent decision in matter number 133158. The Applicant wrote:

“I apprehend, after reading the reasons for your decision in ALZ v SafeWork NSW (No 2) [2016] NSWCATAD 121, that you did not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the issues and I consider that a fair-minded lay observer would agree.”

  1. Her application is said to be based on unattributed or wrongly attributed submissions and a failure to refer to her submissions.

  2. In ALZ v SafeWork NSW (No 2) [2016] NSWCATAD 121 (“ALZ v SafeWork (No 2)”) the Applicant alleged that the Respondent's conduct contravened several of the Health Privacy Principles ("HPPs") of the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 ("HRIP Act") and also several of the Information Protection Principles ("IPPs") of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 ("PPIP Act"). The conduct which was the subject of her complaint concerns a medical report prepared in relation to a workers compensation claim that she had brought against her employer. The Respondent obtained a copy of the medical report from the Applicant’s employer. She alleged breaches of HPPs and…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read ALZ v SafeWork NSW (No 3) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2016] NSWCATAD 156
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an applicant, ALZ, who sought the disqualification of the presiding judge, SafeWork NSW, from further dealing with her applications. ALZ alleged actual and apprehended bias on the part of the judge. The matter was heard in the relevant court. The legal issues before the court were whether the judge was required to disqualify himself due to actual bias and whether there was a real likelihood of apprehended bias. The court considered the arguments presented by ALZ and evaluated the evidence and circumstances to determine whether the allegations of bias were substantiated. After thorough consideration, the court found that there was no actual bias and no real likelihood of apprehended bias. Consequently, the application for disqualification was refused. The case was relisted for further directions to be provided on 29 August 2016 at 9.30 am.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The Applicant's application that I disqualify myself from further dealing with her applications is refused.

(2) The matters are relisted for further directions at 9.30 am on 29 August 2016.

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.