Ford v Child Support Registrar

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ford v Child Support Registrar [2009] FCA 328

JOHN PATRICK FORD v CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

VID 412 of 2007

RYAN J
9 APRIL 2009
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 412 of 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:	JOHN PATRICK FORD Applicant
AND:	CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR Respondent
JUDGE:	RYAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	9 APRIL 2009
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application by way of appeal be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs, to be taxed in default of agreement.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 412 of 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:	JOHN PATRICK FORD Applicant
AND:	CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR Respondent

JUDGE:	RYAN J
DATE:	9 APRIL 2009
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 23 April 2007, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) handed down a decision which, effectively, denied the applicant access to various documents, and stopped him from making, without the Tribunal’s leave, further claims to those documents;  John Patrick Ford and Child Support Registrar [2007] AATA 1242. The question now before the Court is whether, on a proper construction of the relevant provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (“the FOI Act”) and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (“AAT Act”), the Tribunal was correct in denying the applicant access to those documents.

2. An appeal lies from the AAT to this Court under s 44 of the AAT Act, on questions of law only:  see Hussain v Minister for Foreign Affairs (2008) 169 FCR 241 at 254 per Weinberg, Bennett and Edmonds JJ, and the authorities cited by their Honours. That being the nature of the appeal, there are three questions currently before the Court:

   · Whether the Tribunal stated and applied the law correctly in affirming a decision to uphold an exemption under s 37(1)(c) of the FOI Act;

   · Whether the Tribunal stated and applied the law correctly in affirming a decision to uphold an exemption under, in the alternative, s 41(1) of the FOI Act; and

   · Whether the Tribunal stated and applied the law correctly in making a direction under s 42B of the AAT Act.

   Before analysing each of those provisions, it is convenient to set out a little of the background to this matter.

   Factual Background

3. The following facts, recited by Senior Member Handley in the Tribunal, are not contentious. On 2 November 2005, the applicant made the following request of the respondent;

   ‘My request for access to documents is for all emails and any other correspondence to, from, or between H (AKA Jenkins/ Epstein) and Shaun Epstein, from or to any other person or entity, according to that which I may have access…