Fitzgibbon and Prime Minister of Australia (Freedom of information)
[2017] AATA 502
•23 March 2017
Fitzgibbon and Prime Minister of Australia (Freedom of information) [2017] AATA 502 (23 March 2017)
Division:FREEDOM OF INFORMATION DIVISION
File number: 2016/7002
Joel Fitzgibbon
APPLICANT
AndPrime Minister of Australia
RESPONDENT
Appeal from: [2016] AICmr 85
INTERLOCUTORY DECISION
Tribunal:Dr James Popple, Senior Member
Date:23 March 2017
Date of written reasons: 13 April 2017
Place:Canberra
The Tribunal does not have the power to make an order that the applicant’s legal representatives be allowed to inspect the documents in dispute.
........[sgd]......................................................
James Popple, Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION — Access to documents — whether Tribunal has power to order that applicant’s legal representatives can inspect document in dispute — whether inspection order required to ensure that every party is given a reasonable opportunity to present his or her case — whether Tribunal can “have regard” to a document without inspecting it — order not made.
LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, ss 2A, 33(1AB), 35, 37, 39(1)
Freedom of Information Act 1982, ss 4(1), 15, 63, 64
CASES
Day v Collector of Customs (1995) 57 FCR 176
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under s 93A of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (December 2016)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Dr James Popple, Senior Member
13 April 2017
Summary
The Applicant made a request to the Prime Minister for access to a document, under s 15 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act). The Prime Minister refused the request, on the basis that the document sought is not an “official document of a Minister” and, therefore, not a document to which the FOI Act applies. The Prime Minister’s decision was affirmed by the Information Commissioner on review.
The applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision. He also applied for an order that his legal representatives be allowed to inspect the disputed document.
The Tribunal does not have the power to make the inspection order that the applicant seeks. And, if the Tribunal did have that power, I would decline to exercise it.
Background
On 20 October 2015, the Hon. Joel Fitzgibbon MP applied to the Office of the Prime Minister under s 15 of the FOI Act for access to “a copy of the agreement between the Liberal and National Parties to form a Coalition Government” (the Coalition Agreement) dated 15 September 2015.
On or about 8 December 2015, a person authorised by the Prime Minister wrote to Mr Fitzgibbon refusing Mr Fitzgibbon’s request on the grounds that the Coalition Agreement “is not an official document of a Minister and is therefore not a document to which [Mr Fitzgibbon has] a right of access under the FOI Act”.
On 13 January 2016, Mr Fitzgibbon applied to the Information Commissioner under s 54L of the FOI Act for IC review of AFMA’s original decision. An IC review is a review of an IC reviewable decision undertaken by the Information Commissioner under Part VII of the FOI Act.[1]
[1] FOI Act, s 54G.
On 7 December 2016, the Information Commissioner affirmed the Prime Minister’s decision. He decided that the Coalition Agreement was not an “official document of a Minister” under s 4(1) of the FOI Act.
On 23 December 2016, Mr Fitzgibbon applied to the Tribunal, under s 57A(1)(a) of the FOI Act, for review of that decision.
On 14 February 2017, the Prime Minister lodged documents relevant to the review, as required by s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the AAT Act). He was not required to lodge a copy of the Coalition Agreement with the s 37 documents because of ss 64(1) and (5) of the FOI Act, discussed below.[2] The Prime Minister also identified three other documents relevant to the review, but which he did not lodge. I will call these the additional documents. The Prime Minister said that each of the additional documents “discloses part of the substance” of the Coalition Agreement. He applied to the Tribunal for an order, under s 35(4) of the AAT Act, restricting disclosure of the additional documents to the Tribunal as constituted for the purposes of this proceeding.
[2] See [16] below.
On 3 March 2017, Mr Fitzgibbon advised the Tribunal that the parties had reached agreement in respect of the additional documents. He also advised that he wished to be heard “on the question of his legal team’s access to the Coalition Agreement”.
On 17 March 2017, Mr Fitzgibbon applied for an order that “his legal representatives (and only his legal representatives)” be allowed to inspect the Coalition Agreement and the additional documents.
On 23 March 2017, I conducted a directions hearing in this matter. I dismissed Mr Fitzgibbon’s application for an inspection order, and gave short reasons orally. On 31 March 2017, Mr Fitzgibbon requested written reasons for my decision under s 43(2A) of the AAT Act. These are those reasons.
Issues
The interlocutory issues are these:
·Does the Tribunal have the power to order that Mr Fitzgibbon’s legal representatives be allowed to inspect the Coalition Agreement and the additional documents?
·If so, should the Tribunal make that order?
Legislative framework
Section 35(1) of the AAT Act provides that “[s]ubject to this section, the hearing of a proceeding before the Tribunal must be in public”. Sections 35(2), (3) and (4) provide that the Tribunal may, by order, give directions for private hearings, and for the non-publication and non-disclosure of information. Section 35(5) provides that:
(5)In considering whether to give directions under subsection (2), (3) or (4), the Tribunal is to take as the basis of its consideration the principle that it is desirable:
(a) that hearings of proceedings before the Tribunal should be held in public; and
(b) that evidence given before the Tribunal and the contents of documents received in evidence by the Tribunal should be made available to the public and to all the parties; and
(c) that the contents of documents lodged with the Tribunal should be made available to all the parties.
However (and without being required to seek the views of the parties), the Tribunal is to pay due regard to any reasons in favour of giving such a direction, including, for the purposes of subsection (3) or (4), the confidential nature (if applicable) of the information.
Section 39 of the AAT Act relevantly provides:
39 Submissions—Divisions other than Security Division and Social Services and Child Support Division
(1)Subject to sections 35, 36 and 36B, the Tribunal shall ensure that every party to a proceeding before the Tribunal is given a reasonable opportunity to present his or her case and, in particular, to inspect any documents to which the Tribunal proposes to have regard in reaching a decision in the proceeding and to make submissions in relation to those documents.
…
(3)This section does not limit subsection 25(4A) (Tribunal may determine scope of review).
Sections 36 and 36B are about public interest certificates, and are not relevant to this review.
Section 64 of the FOI Act relevantly provides:
64 Production of exempt documents
(1)Sections 37 [lodging of material documents with Tribunal] and 38AA [ongoing requirement for lodging material documents with Tribunal] of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 do not apply in relation to a document that is claimed to be an exempt document, but in proceedings before the Tribunal in relation to such a document, the Tribunal may, for the purpose of deciding whether the document is an exempt document, require the document to be produced for inspection by members of the Tribunal only.
(1AA)If, upon the inspection, the Tribunal is satisfied that the document is an exempt document, the Tribunal must return the document to the person by whom it was produced without permitting a person to have access to the document, or disclosing the contents of the document to a person, unless the person is:
(a) a member of the Tribunal as constituted for the purposes of the proceeding; or
(b) a member of the staff of the Tribunal in the course of the performance of his or her duties as a member of that staff; or
(c) in the circumstances permitted under paragraph 60A(6)(a)—the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.
(1A)If, for the purposes of proceedings before the Tribunal under this Act in relation to a document that is claimed to be an exempt document, the document is voluntarily produced to the Tribunal, then only:
(a) the members of the Tribunal as constituted for the purposes of the review; or
(b) a member of the staff of the Tribunal in the course of the performance of his or her duties as a member of that staff;
may inspect, or have access to, the document.
(2)The Tribunal may require the production, for inspection by members of the Tribunal only, of an exempt document for the purpose of determining whether it is practicable for an agency or a Minister to grant access to a copy of the document with such deletions as to make the copy not an exempt document and, where an exempt document is produced by reason of such a requirement, the Tribunal shall, after inspection of the document by the members of the Tribunal as constituted for the purposes of the proceeding, return the document to the person by whom it was produced without permitting a person to have access to the document, or disclosing the contents of the document to a person, unless the person is:
(a) a member of the Tribunal as constituted for the purposes of the proceeding; or
(b) a member of the staff of the Tribunal in the course of the performance of his or her duties as a member of that staff; or
(c) in the circumstances permitted under paragraph 60A(6)(a)—the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.
…
(5)Subsections (1), (1A) and (2) apply in relation to a document in the possession of a Minister that is claimed by the Minister not to be an official document of the Minister as if references in those subsections to an exempt document were references to a document in the possession of a Minister that is not an official document of the Minister.
Section 63 of the FOI Act relevantly provides:
63 Tribunal to ensure non-disclosure of certain matters
(1)In determining whether the Tribunal is satisfied that it is desirable to make an order or orders under subsection 35(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Tribunal must:
(a) have regard to:
(i)the necessity of avoiding the disclosure to the applicant of exempt matter contained in a document to which the proceedings relate; and
…
…
(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975:
…
(b) the Tribunal may receive evidence, or hear argument, in the absence of the applicant or his or her representative where it is necessary to do so in order to prevent the disclosure to the applicant of matter or information of a kind referred to in paragraph (1)(a).
There is no provision with the corresponding effect on s 63 as the effect that s 64(5) has on s 64: that is, nothing provides that s 63 applies in relation to a document claimed not to be an official document of a Minister as if the reference in s 63 to a document containing exempt matter were a reference to a document that is not an official document of a Minister.[3]
[3] Note, also, that the Tribunal cannot, under s 63, require production of documents that are exempt under s 33 (documents affecting national security, defence or international relations), s 34 (Cabinet documents) or s 45A (Parliamentary Budget Office documents), but can do so under s 58E (production to the Tribunal of certain exempt documents).
Inspection orders under s 39(1), AAT Act
Mr Fitzgibbon argues that I have the power, under s 39(1) of the AAT Act, to make the inspection order he seeks: an order that his legal representatives be allowed to inspect the Coalition Agreement and the additional documents. He goes further: he says that principles of procedural fairness require me to make such an order, to “ensure that every party … is given a reasonable opportunity to present his or her case” (adopting the words of s 39(1)).
In support of this argument, Mr Fitzgibbon cites the Federal Court decision of Day v Collector of Customs.[4] In Day, the Court considered a ground of appeal that the Tribunal in that case “erred in law in failing to allow the applicant’s counsel confidential access to the documents in issue”.[5] At the time that Day was decided, s 35(3) of the AAT Act was in similar terms to the current s 35(5); s 39 of the AAT Act was in substantially the same terms as s 39(1) is now; s 63(1)(a) of the FOI Act was in similar terms to the current s 63(1)(a)(i); and s 64(1) of the FOI Act was in substantially the same terms as ss 64(1) and 64(1AA) are now.[6] The Court said:
Presumably because the matter was not argued, the Tribunal did not consider whether s 39 operated to enable it to order disclosure to the applicant’s legal representatives of the documents claimed to be exempt, even upon undertakings by the lawyers to protect the confidentiality of the documents and their contents. The applicant argued that s 64(1) should not be read so as to exclude confidential access being given to his lawyers. However, the terms of the section are clear and in my opinion it can and should not be read as being subject to s 39 as a substantial embodiment of the common law. As I see the position, if the only manner in which the Tribunal can “have regard” to documents claimed to be exempt from production is by the procedure contained in s 64(1) of the FOI Act, the application of s 39 is restricted and the Tribunal has no discretion to make the documents available to the applicant’s counsel.
However, if the Tribunal can obtain the documents by some means other than an order, for example by voluntary production, s 64(1) would have no application. The operative sections in this event would be s 39 of the AAT Act, and s 63(1) of the FOI Act …
Had it so intended, Parliament could easily have enacted this provision to ensure a general and complete exclusion of access to exempt documents, or extending the preclusion of access to include the applicant’s legal advisers. Instead s 63 does no more than reinforce the general power of the Tribunal to restrict access or publication under s 35(2) of the AAT Act, as explained by the legislative direction in s 35(3) …
This exhortation reflects the fundamental principle of adversarial proceedings and fair and due process that as far as possible one party not be in a position of superior knowledge of relevant facts to the other. And despite the nature of administrative proceedings and the expansiveness of access to evidentiary information given to the Tribunal by the AAT Act (ss 37, 38), proceedings before the Tribunal are essentially and relevantly adversarial. Nothing could be more relevant to an issue about exemption than the allegedly exempt documents. Moreover, special care is required in proceedings under the FOI Act because by definition the respondent as the owner or custodian of the relevant documents will generally know their contents in detail whereas the applicant will not.
The Tribunal will always be placed in a difficult and I believe invidious position in holding the balance evenly between the parties when reaching a decision on exemption if the maximum possible opportunity of informed argument is denied. It is generally undesirable that independent arbitrators make crucial decisions through self or unilateral instruction.
It appears to me that in the absence of an order under s 64(1) there is no express exclusion of s 39 of the AAT Act. In this circumstance I am unwilling to read such a restriction into the statutory framework. I conclude, therefore, that on its proper construction the FOI Act does not excise the great facility for all courts and tribunals of providing temporary confidential access to disputed documents to a party’s lawyers, with all their solemn obligations not to disclose either the documents or their contents to anyone else including their client, and the major sanctions applicable to any breach.[7]
[4] (1995) 57 FCR 176.
[5] (1995) 57 FCR 176 at 181 per Einfeld J.
[6] See (1995) 57 FCR 176 at 182–183 per Einfeld J. The reference to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security in s 64(1AA)(c) (see [16] above) has no analogue in s 64(1)—or in any other provision—of the FOI Act as it was in 1995. However, that difference is not relevant to this review.
[7] (1995) 57 FCR 176 at 182–184 per Einfeld J.
In this review, the Prime Minister claims that the document in issue (the Coalition Agreement)[8] is not an official document of a Minister. Because of s 64(5), s 64(1) applies in this review as if references in that provision to an exempt document were references to a document in the possession of a Minister that is not an official document of the Minister. So, it is open to the Tribunal to make an order under s 64(1) requiring the production of the Coalition Agreement. The Tribunal has not done so.
[8] The parties have reached agreement in respect of the other documents in dispute (the additional documents—see [9]–[10] above). The Tribunal has not yet been advised about the details of that agreement.
Mr Fitzgibbon says that, because no order has been made under s 64(1), the effect of the Court’s decision in Day is that s 39(1) applies, and that Mr Fitzgibbon will be denied “a reasonable opportunity to present his … case” if he is not allowed “to inspect any documents to which the Tribunal proposes to have regard in reaching a decision”, specifically the Coalition Agreement.
I disagree. I do not think that the decision in Day applies in the way that Mr Fitzgibbon says it does, because of the subsequent insertion of s 64(1A) in the FOI Act. In any event, I do not think that s 39(1) of the AAT Act applies in the way that he says it does, because the Coalition Agreement is not (currently) a document to which the Tribunal proposes to have regard in reaching a decision in this review. And, even if s 39(1) does apply, I do not think that I should exercise my discretion to order that Mr Fitzgibbon’s legal representatives be allowed to inspect the Coalition Agreement or the additional documents.
Applying Day v Collector of Customs
As noted above, the Federal Court in Day v Collector of Customs said that:
… if the only manner in which the Tribunal can “have regard” to documents claimed to be exempt from production is by the procedure contained in s 64(1) of the FOI Act, the application of s 39 [of the AAT Act] is restricted and the Tribunal has no discretion to make the documents available to the applicant’s counsel.
However, if the Tribunal can obtain the documents by some means other than an order, for example by voluntary production, s 64(1) would have no application. The operative sections in this event would be s 39 of the AAT Act, and s 63(1) of the FOI Act …[9]
[9] (1995) 57 FCR 176 at 182–183 per Einfeld J: see [19] above.
The Court noted that, “[h]ad it so intended, Parliament could easily have enacted this provision to ensure a general and complete exclusion of access to exempt documents”.[10] That is what Parliament did when it inserted s 64(1A) in the FOI Act in 2005, a decade later.[11]
[10] (1995) 57 FCR 176 at 183 per Einfeld J: see [19] above.
[11] Administrative Appeals Tribunal Amendment Act 2005, Schedule 1, item 213, which commenced on 16 May 2005.
The explanatory memorandum to the Bill that became the Act that inserted s 64(1A) explains that:
Section 37 of the AAT Act requires an agency to produce to the Tribunal all documents within its possession or control that are relevant to the review. Once an agency has fulfilled its obligation under section 37 of the Act, it is not required to lodge a document which is claimed to be exempt under the FOI Act. However section 64 of the FOI Act provides that the Tribunal can order the production for inspection of a document that is claimed to be exempt, but only for the purpose of deciding whether the document is an exempt document. If upon inspection the Tribunal is satisfied that the document is an exempt document the Tribunal must return the document without permitting any person other than a member of the Tribunal as constituted for the purposes of the proceeding, or a member of the staff of the Tribunal in the course of the performance of his or her duties as a member of that staff, to have access to, or disclose the contents of, the document.
New subsection 64(1A) provides that if an agency voluntarily produces an exempt document to the Tribunal then the Tribunal is prohibited from disclosing the documents to any person other than a member of the Tribunal as constituted for the purposes of the proceeding, or a member of the staff of the Tribunal in the course of the performance of his or her duties as a member of that staff. This amendment clarifies that the AAT is obliged to protect documents that are claimed to be exempt from further disclosure where they have been produced voluntarily or under a section 64(1) order. The object of new subsection 64(1A) is to encourage the voluntary production of documents to the AAT by agencies. Voluntary production will improve the efficiency of the AAT by speeding up proceedings rather than requiring the AAT in all cases to make an order for production.[12]
[12] Explanatory Memorandum, Administrative Appeals Tribunal Amendment Bill 2004 at 54–55.
In its terms (even without reference to the explanatory memorandum) it is clear that, if s 64(1A) of the FOI Act applies, s 39(1) of the AAT Act does not:[13] if a document is voluntarily produced, only Tribunal members and staff may inspect it—the Tribunal cannot allow a party to inspect it. That is the same conclusion that the Federal Court reached in Day in relation to the interaction of s 39 with the provisions now in ss 64(1) and 64(1AA)—at that time, in s 64(1) only. Sections 64(1) and (1AA) impose restrictions on who can inspect a document that has been compulsorily produced. Section 64(1A) extends those same restrictions to a document that has been voluntarily produced.[14]
[13] Section 63(1) of the FOI Act does not apply in this review either, because that provision applies to exempt documents and not to documents that are claimed not to be official documents of a Minister: see [17] above.
[14] Those restrictions differ in only one respect: only a document that has been compulsorily produced can be disclosed to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, and only in the circumstances permitted under s 60A(6)(a), which applies when the document is claimed to be exempt under s 33 (documents affecting national security, defence or international relations). That difference is not relevant to this review.
Mr Fitzgibbon says that s 39(1) applies in this review because the Coalition Agreement has not been produced to the Tribunal, compulsorily or voluntarily. He says, effectively, that the Tribunal could—indeed, should—order that a party be allowed to inspect a document that the Tribunal does not propose to inspect itself. I disagree because of my view, discussed below,[15] about the meaning of “documents to which the Tribunal proposes to have regard” for the purposes of s 39(1). Furthermore, I think that the Tribunal having the power to make such an order is inconsistent with the fact that an agency or minister could avoid complying with that order simply by voluntarily providing the document to the Tribunal.
[15] See [28]–[31] below.
“Documents to which the Tribunal proposes to have regard”
Even if I am wrong about the interaction of s 64 of the FOI Act with s 39 of the AAT Act, I do not think that s 39(1) applies in the way that Mr Fitzgibbon says it does. Section 39(1) applies, particularly, to the inspection of “any documents to which the Tribunal proposes to have regard in reaching a decision in the proceeding”. Reviews of FOI decisions, by the Tribunal or by the Information Commissioner, can be conducted without the Tribunal or the Commissioner inspecting the documents in issue.[16] This can happen, for example, where the status of a document (exempt, conditionally exempt, or not covered by the FOI Act) can be determined on the basis of the FOI request itself.
[16] See, for example, Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under s 93A of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (December 2016) at [10.99].
As noted above, the Tribunal has not made an order under s 64(1) of the FOI Act requiring the production of the Coalition Agreement. If the Tribunal proceeds to determine this review without making such an order, and the Coalition Agreement is not voluntarily produced, the Tribunal will decide the status of the document (that is, whether it is an official document of a minister) without reference to its contents. Mr Fitzgibbon says that, even in such circumstances, the Coalition Agreement is a document “to which the Tribunal proposes to have regard in reaching a decision in the proceeding” for the purposes of s 39(1) of the AAT Act, so the Tribunal should give him a reasonable opportunity to inspect the document.
I disagree. In circumstances where the Tribunal makes a decision on review without inspecting the documents in dispute, I do not think that it can be said to have “had regard” to the document. It might have had regard to the fact of the document’s existence, or it might have had regard to whether the document falls within a particular class of documents. But that does not amount to having regard to the document itself. I note that this approach is consistent with what the Federal Court said in Day when it identified two ways “in which the Tribunal can ‘have regard’ to documents”: “the procedure contained in s 64(1) of the FOI Act” and “some means other than an order, for example by voluntary production”.[17]
[17] (1995) 57 FCR 176 at 182–183 per Einfeld J: see [19] and [23] above.
The Tribunal may yet decide to require the production of the Coalition Agreement, under ss 64(1) and (5), for the purpose of deciding whether it is an official document of a Minister. If the Tribunal requires its production, the Coalition Agreement would be a document to which the Tribunal proposes to have regard in reaching a decision in this review. But, if the Tribunal requires its production, s 39(1) cannot apply, because of the restrictions in s 64(1AA).
Exercising the discretion
If I am wrong, and I do have a discretion under s 39(1) of the AAT Act to order that Mr Fitzgibbon’s legal representatives be allowed to inspect the Coalition Agreement, I do not think that I should exercise that discretion.
Mr Fitzgibbon says that it would be procedurally unfair for this review to continue without me making such an order: that, without such an order, he will be denied a reasonable opportunity to present his case. He points out that the Federal Court in Day said that “[i]t is generally undesirable that independent arbitrators make crucial decisions through self or unilateral instruction”.[18] But, if the Tribunal does not inspect a document, it cannot be said that the Tribunal was self- or unilaterally-instructed. And if the Tribunal does inspect a document (whether produced compulsorily or voluntarily), ss 64(1AA) or s 64(1A) requires that people other than Tribunal members and staff[19] must not be given access to the document—effectively requiring that the Tribunal be unilaterally instructed. In those circumstances, I do not think that it can be said that procedural fairness requires that Mr Fitzgibbon (or his legal advisors) be allowed to inspect the Coalition Agreement.
[18] (1995) 57 FCR 176 at 183 per Einfeld J: see [19] above.
[19] Documents that have been compulsorily produced can also be disclosed to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security in certain circumstances: s 64(1AA)(c). See note 14 above.
Mr Fitzgibbon also points to ss 2A and 33(1AB) of the AAT Act. Section 2A requires the Tribunal to “pursue the objective of providing a mechanism of review that … is fair, just, economical, informal and quick; and … is proportionate to the importance and complexity of the matter”.[20] Section 33(1AB) requires parties, and their representatives, to use their “best endeavours to assist the Tribunal to fulfil the objective in section 2A”. Mr Fitzgibbon says that, if his legal representatives were to inspect the Coalition Agreement, they would be better placed to advise him how to proceed, and better placed to assist the Tribunal to meet its obligations under s 2A. That may be true. But I think that the Tribunal’s obligations under s 2A must be considered in light of the mechanism set out in ss 64(1AA) and (1A) of the FOI Act. Those provisions are clearly intended to restrict access to documents in dispute in FOI matters. The Tribunal’s mechanism of review must operate within those restrictions.
[20] AAT Act, ss 2A(b) and (c).
Conclusion
The Tribunal does not have the power to order that Mr Fitzgibbon’s legal representatives be allowed to inspect the Coalition Agreement and the additional documents. And, if the Tribunal did have that power, I would decline to exercise it.
I certify that the preceding 35 (thirty-five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Popple
.........................[sgd]...............................................
Associate
Dated: 13 April 2017
Date of hearing: 23 March 2017 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Matthew Albert Solicitors for the Applicant: Maurice Blackburn Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Tom Brennan Solicitors for the Respondent: Corrs Chambers Westgarth Lawyers
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
0
1
0