Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: EMQ v Cumberland Council [2022] NSWCATAD 51 Hearing dates: On the papers after 27 January 2022 Date of orders: 16 February 2022 Decision date: 16 February 2022 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: P French, Senior Member Decision: The agency’s General Application dated 29 October 2021 is to be set down for hearing.
Catchwords: PROCEDURE – summons to produce documents – objections to production of particular documents
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Cases Cited: Decision Restricted [2021] NSWCATAP 288
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Procedural rulings Parties: EMQ, applicant
Cumberland Council, respondentRepresentation: EMQ, self-represented
Colin McFadzean, General Counsel, for respondent
File Number(s): 2020/00355032 Publication restriction: The publication or broadcast of the name of the applicant is prohibited pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. The applicant is to be known by the pseudonym “EMQ”.
REASONS FOR DECISION
-
The substantive application before the Tribunal is an application by EMQ (the applicant) under section 55 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 for an administrative review under section 55(1) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (PPIP Act) of alleged conduct by Cumberland Council (the agency) that was in contravention of information protection principles contained in Part 2, Division 1 of the PPIP Act following an internal review of that conduct by the agency. This application was made to the Tribunal on 9 December 2020.
-
The matter currently before the Tribunal concerns a Summons to produce documents the Tribunal issued on the agency on the application of the applicant on 25 March 2021. The Summons was subject to a number of objections by the agency, which were determined by the Tribunal, differently constituted, on 8 June 2021 following hearings conducted on 19 April 2021 and 3 May 2021. Some paragraphs of the schedule to the Summons were struck out: EMQ v Cumberland City Council [2021] NSWCATAD 162.
-
That first instance decision was the subject of an appeal to the Appeal Panel of the Tribunal: Decision Restricted [2021] NSWCATAP 288. The Appeal Panel allowed the appeal in a decision handed down on 15 October 2021, making the following orders:
The appeal be upheld so that the respondent comply with paragraphs 4, 4b, 5a, 6a, 6b, 6c and 6d of the Summons issued by the appellant addressed to the Respondent.
The documents referred to within the paragraphs set out in Order (1) be produced to the Registry within 14 days of the date of these orders, unless any application is made by the respondent within that period that such documents, or some of them, may be exempt from production.
-
On 29 October 2021 the agency made a General Application which applies for orders that it is exempt from producing…
-
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read EMQ v Cumberland Council 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2022] NSWCATAD 51
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the nature of the documents sought and the relevance of the information contained within them. It examined the statutory and contractual obligations governing the disclosure of such documents and the principle of proportionality in the context of document production. The court assessed the proportionality of the documents' relevance to the proceedings and the potential impact on EMQ's privacy and commercial interests. It concluded that while some documents were pertinent to the case, others were not essential and their production could potentially cause undue hardship to EMQ. Therefore, the court ruled that the council's application for the production of all documents was not justified. Instead, the court determined that a more balanced approach was necessary, and the application should be heard to determine which documents, if any, should be produced.
Given the complexity of the issues, the court decided that a hearing was required to explore the specifics of the documents in question and the respective rights and obligations of both parties. The court set the matter down for a hearing to allow both parties to present their arguments in full. This approach ensures that the court can make a well-informed decision that balances the needs of both parties and adheres to the principles of fairness and proportionality in legal proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
The agency’s General Application dated 29 October 2021 is to be set down for hearing.
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.