FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Cosenza v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2011] FCA 1341
Citation: Cosenza v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2011] FCA 1341 Parties: DEAN COSENZA v SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS File number: SAD 218 of 2011 Judge: FINN J Date of judgment: 23 November 2011 Cases cited: Cosenza v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2009] FCA 1525 Date of hearing: 23 November 2011 Place: Adelaide Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 4 Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person. Counsel for the Respondent: Mr B Roberts Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
SAD 218 of 2011
BETWEEN: DEAN COSENZA
ApplicantAND: SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE:
FINN J
DATE OF ORDER:
23 NOVEMBER 2011
WHERE MADE:
ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The matter be adjourned for hearing by another Judge on a date to be fixed.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
SAD 218 of 2011
BETWEEN: DEAN COSENZA
ApplicantAND: SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE:
FINN J
DATE:
23 NOVEMBER 2011
PLACE:
ADELAIDE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The application in this matter was filed on 9 September 2011, its object being to set aside a bankruptcy notice served on Mr Cosenza. In the accompanying affidavit Mr Cosenza requested that it be made returnable before me as I had conducted this matter previously. I had no particular recollection of that. The matter did come before me not because of this request but because I was the Duty Judge in South Australia at the time of filing.
The matter being a routine one, at the first directions hearing I set a timetable for it for trial on today’s date. Regrettably, it was only yesterday evening that, on reading the parties’ submissions, I became aware that one of the principal matters sought in the application was that I go behind a costs order I had made against Mr Cosenza in consequence of my dismissing a previous application of his: see Cosenza v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2009] FCA 1525. In my view it is quite inappropriate for me to undertake the hearing of a matter raising that question. The more so because in proceedings leading to the second order for costs made by Lander J on 7 July 2011 which is in issue, it was pointed out to Mr Cosenza that it was still possible, albeit it would be difficult for him, to appeal against my earlier order.
While I understand why Mr Cosenza may have wished me to entertain this matter it is, in my view, not in the interests of the administration of justice that I do so. The interests of the parties alone are not the sole ones that are relevant. The present difficulty raises an issue of public interest as well. The perception of the public about a Judge embarking upon a course such as I have been asked to in this matter is a matter of which account needs properly be taken.
In the circumstances I consider it proper and appropriate that the matter be heard by another judge. Accordingly I recuse myself.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Finn. Associate:
Dated: 23 November 2011
- AGLC
- Cosenza v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2011] FCA 1341
- Case
- [2011] FCA 1341
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was whether the Secretary's decision to withhold the documents was lawful, rational, and procedurally fair. The applicant argued that the refusal to provide access to the documents was arbitrary and without proper justification, and thus contravened the principles of natural justice and administrative law. Additionally, Cosenza contended that the Department's actions breached his right to access personal information under the Information Privacy Act. The court was required to determine whether the Secretary's decision was based on proper consideration of the relevant factors and adhered to the legal standards governing access to personal information.
The court considered the applicable statutory provisions and case law concerning access to personal information and the principles of administrative law. It was noted that the Secretary had a discretion under the relevant legislation to refuse access to certain documents if disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. The court examined whether the Secretary's decision was supported by substantial reasons and whether the applicant's right to access his personal information was appropriately balanced against the public interest considerations. The court found that while the applicant had a prima facie right to access the documents, the Secretary's decision to withhold them was not unreasonable given the specific circumstances and the need to protect sensitive information. The court concluded that the Secretary's decision was lawful, rational, and procedurally fair.
The court determined that the appeal should be dismissed, and the matter was adjourned for hearing by another judge on a date to be fixed. This decision highlights the importance of balancing individual rights to access personal information with the broader public interest considerations that may warrant confidentiality and non-disclosure.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The matter be adjourned for hearing by another Judge on a date to be fixed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.