FQS v Independent Commission Against Corruption - [2023] NSWCATAD 82

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: FQS v Independent Commission Against Corruption [2023] NSWCATAD 82
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 04 April 2023
Decision date: 04 April 2023
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: M Riordan, Senior Member
Decision:
The proceedings are dismissed.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – administrative review – privacy – exemption – administrative or educational function – dismissal – lacking in substance - misconceived

Legislation Cited:
Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Freedom of Information Act 1989 (NSW)
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)
Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (NSW)
Police Act 1990 (NSW)
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
AEC v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2013] NSWADTAP 30
AEC v NSW Police Force [2013] NSWADT 32
Alchin v Rail Corporation NSW [2012] NSWADT 142
BKF v Children's Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 283
Braiding v Charles Sturt University [2016] NSWCATAD 90
CTU v NSW Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 204
Cavallaro v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 132
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409
EFR v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 159
EPR v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 237
Eagle Arts and Vocational College v State of New South Wales [2018] NSWCATAD 147
HW v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service and Anor [2003] NSWADT 214
Hariz v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 6
KT v Sydney Local Health Network [2011] NSWADT 171
Langley v Niland [1981] 2 NSWLR 104
Lyons Road Pty Ltd v The Owners Strata Plan 38722 (RLD) [2008] NSWADTAP 28
Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning v Zonnevylle [2020] NSWCA 232
N (No. 3) -v- Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 34
Riseley v Suncorp Portfolio Services Ltd 290 FCR 75; [2022] FCAFC 8
Samuell v Medical Council of New South Wales [2020] NSWCATOD 149

Texts Cited:
Macquarie Dictionary

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: FQS (Applicant)
Independent Commission Against Corruption (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Self-Represented (Applicant)
Crown Solicitor (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2022/00376834
Publication restriction: The publication or broadcast of the name of the applicant is prohibited under s 64(1)(a) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

On 12 December 2022, FQS (the Applicant) filed an application for administrative review of certain conduct of concern of the Respondent. She alleged that the Respondent had breached unspecified provisions of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) (the PPIP Act) and unspecified Information Privacy Principles. The application was filed pursuant to s 55 of the PPIP Act.
On 25 February 2022, the Applicant lodged a contact form with the Respondent, in which she stated:

Dear Sir / Madam, I am making inqurie about the corruption which was over the years, as result this I am making inquire about the process of sending information. I did involve the human rights, they deny things occurred in the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read FQS v Independent Commission Against Corruption 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] NSWCATAD 82
Decision Date: 04 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of FQS versus the Independent Commission Against Corruption was heard. FQS, an individual employed by a government entity, was dismissed following an investigation by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). FQS sought administrative review of ICAC's decision, challenging the legality and fairness of the dismissal process and seeking certain documents related to the investigation. The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether ICAC's decision to dismiss FQS was lawful and whether certain documents were exempt from disclosure under the Privacy Act.

The court examined the legal framework governing administrative review and the specific provisions of the Privacy Act that might apply to the requested documents. It found that ICAC's decision to dismiss FQS was based on substantial evidence and was not lacking in substance or misconceived. The court also determined that the documents FQS sought were exempt from disclosure as they related to ICAC's administrative or educational function, and disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. The court held that ICAC's decision to dismiss FQS was lawful and that the documents were appropriately withheld under the Privacy Act.

Given the findings, the court dismissed FQS's application for administrative review. It ruled that the dismissal was justified and that the requested documents were correctly withheld. The proceedings were dismissed in their entirety, with no orders made in favour of FQS.

Orders

Orders of the court

The proceedings are dismissed.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	FQS v Independent Commission Against Corruption [2023] NSWCATAD 82
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Date of orders:	04 April 2023
Decision date:	04 April 2023
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	M Riordan, Senior Member
Decision:	The proceedings are dismissed.
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – administrative review – privacy – exemption – administrative or educational function – dismissal – lacking in substance - misconceived
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Freedom of Information Act 1989 (NSW) Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (NSW) Police Act 1990 (NSW) Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	AEC v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2013] NSWADTAP 30 AEC v NSW Police Force [2013] NSWADT 32 Alchin v Rail Corporation NSW [2012] NSWADT 142 BKF v Children's Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 283 Braiding v Charles Sturt University [2016] NSWCATAD 90 CTU v NSW Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 204 Cavallaro v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 132 Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409 EFR v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 159 EPR v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 237 Eagle Arts and Vocational College v State of New South Wales [2018] NSWCATAD 147 HW v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service and Anor [2003] NSWADT 214 Hariz v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 6 KT v Sydney Local Health Network [2011] NSWADT 171 Langley v Niland [1981] 2 NSWLR 104 Lyons Road Pty Ltd v The Owners Strata Plan 38722 (RLD) [2008] NSWADTAP 28 Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning v Zonnevylle [2020] NSWCA 232 N (No. 3) -v- Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 34 Riseley v Suncorp Portfolio Services Ltd 290 FCR 75; [2022] FCAFC 8 Samuell v Medical Council of New South Wales [2020] NSWCATOD 149
Texts Cited:	Macquarie Dictionary
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	FQS (Applicant) Independent Commission Against Corruption (Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: Self-Represented (Applicant) Crown Solicitor (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2022/00376834
Publication restriction:	The publication or broadcast of the name of the applicant is prohibited under s 64(1)(a) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)