Har v Metro North Hospital and Health Service

The appellant in this matter, Har, appealed two separate decisions made by the Information Commissioner under the Information Legislation Amendment Act 2009 (Qld). These appeals were heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The decisions in question related to the appellant's requests for access to certain information held by the Metro North Hospital and Health Service. The tribunal was required to determine whether the appeals should be consolidated and heard together, as well as whether the appeals should be heard together.

The legal issues before the tribunal centred on the appropriate procedure for handling the consolidation and sequencing of the appeals. The tribunal had to consider whether it was appropriate to consolidate the appeals and if the appeals should be heard together, given that they involved the same appellant and were appeals from separate decisions of the Information Commissioner. The tribunal also had to address whether any authorities should be granted and the costs associated with the appeals.

The tribunal dismissed the applications for consolidation and authorities, but ordered that the appeals be heard together and listed for a further directions hearing. The tribunal reasoned that while it was appropriate for the appeals to be heard together due to their commonality in parties and subject matter, there were no grounds to consolidate the appeals as they involved different sets of facts and issues. The tribunal also noted that the appeals were at different stages and that consolidating them would not serve the interests of justice. Regarding the costs, the tribunal reserved the decision on costs to the Member who would decide the substantive appeals, with specific provisions for costs involving the second respondent if removed as a party.

In summary, the tribunal dismissed the applications for consolidation and authorities, but ordered that the appeals be heard together and listed for further directions. The tribunal also reserved the decision on costs to the Member deciding the substantive appeals.