Atkins and Repatriation Commission

[2004] AATA 1422

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 1422

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No N2004/917

VETERANS' APPEALS  DIVISION		)
Re		JOHN ATKINS

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Robin Hunt, Senior Member

Date18 October 2004

PlaceSydney

Decision The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the Applicant's application for review.  

..............................................

Ms R Hunt
  Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

FOI – Request for access to documents – Not accompanied by fee – Applicant did not provide information to assist in the identification of documents – Did not comply with the requirements of s15(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 – No valid FOI request made – No decision made by the Respondent – No reviewable decision - Tribunal has no jurisdiction.

REASONS FOR DECISION

18 October 2004 Robin Hunt, Senior Member         

1. Mr Atkins, the Applicant, sought review of a purported decision by the Respondent. Mr Atkins wrote a letter, dated 3 May 2004, addressed to an officer of the Legal Services Group of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, requesting access to documents in relation to his claims for compensation. Section 15(2)(e) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act), requires that a request must be:

“accompanied by the fee payable under the regulations in respect of the request”.

The records and documents before the Tribunal indicate that neither the letter nor the attached FOI form of the same date were accompanied by the fee that was payable. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant has not met the requirement of paragraph 15(2)(e) of the FOI Act.

2.      In addition, the Respondent’s letter in reply to the Applicant, dated 10 June 2004, sought additional information to assist in the possible identification of documents. Documents before the Tribunal show that the Applicant did not respond to this request. Therefore, the Applicant has also not met the requirement set out in paragraph 15(2)(b) of the Act which reads that a request must:

“provide such information concerning the document as is reasonably necessary to enable a responsible officer of the agency, or the Minister, to identify it”

3. As the letter from the Applicant did not comply with the requirements of s15(2) of the FOI Act, the letter was not a valid FOI request and the Respondent was not in a position to make a decision. The Respondent therefore made no decision. As no decision has been made by the Respondent, no decision exists for the Tribunal to review. This means that there is no matter that falls within the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under s55 of the FOI Act. It follows that the Tribunal cannot proceed on the application and the matter was dismissed as set out in the Tribunal’s direction made on 18 October 2004.

I certify that the 3 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Robin Hunt  

Signed:         .....................................................................................
Zoe McDonald
Associate