Hutchinson v Roads & Traffic Authority - [2006] NSWADT 22

CITATION: Hutchinson v Roads & Traffic Authority [2006] NSWADT 22

DIVISION: General Division

PARTIES: APPLICANT
Rowan Hutchinson
RESPONDENT
Roads & Taffic Authority

FILE NUMBER: 053110

HEARING DATES: 20/10/05

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 10/20/2005

DATE OF DECISION:
01/27/2006

BEFORE: Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President)

CATCHWORDS: Jurisdiction

MATTER FOR DECISION: Preliminary matter

LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Freedom of Information Act 1989

CASES CITED: Project Blue Sky v ABA [1998] 194 CLR 355

REPRESENTATION:
APPLICANT
B Zipser, barrister
RESPONDENT
M Allars, barrister

ORDERS: 1. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make a decision based on the applicant’s amended request for documents; 2. The Tribunal makes the following directions:; (a) Within 21 days of the date of this decision, the RTA is to provide written submissions on the following questions:; (i) does the Tribunal have power to remit the reviewable decision under s 65 of the ADT Act in the circumstances of this case?; (ii) if so, should the Tribunal exercise its discretion under s 65 to remit the decision? ; b) Within a further 21 days, Mr Hutchinson is to provide written submissions in reply on the same questions; c) The Tribunal will determine these questions “on the papers” in accordance with s 76 of the ADT Act.3 ; If either party wishes to apply for costs, an application together with written submissions in support of the application is to be filed and served within 21 days of the date of this decision. If either party wishes to respond to an application for costs, written submissions are to be filed and served within a further 21 days; The Tribunal will then determine any application for costs “on the papers” in accordance with s 76 of the ADT Act.

Introduction

1 The applicant, Mr Hutchinson, worked for the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) until 12 January 1998 when he was suspended from duty. The RTA decided to recommend that he be dismissed from employment. In April 1998 the RTA made the decision to dismiss him. Mr Hutchinson appealed to the Government and Related Employees Tribunal (the GREAT) against both the recommendation and the dismissal. Shortly after the decision to suspend him, Mr Hutchinson applied to the RTA under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (FOI Act) for his employee file and any other records the agency held about him. After that, he made several further applications for documents relating to his employment. The application which was originally the subject of these proceedings was made on 7 October 2004 and requested the following information:

Documents submitted between RTA and the GREAT Tribunal in relation to GREAT Appeals 259 of 1998 and 310 of 1998. File notes of any telephone conversations or any correspondence or notes about these GREAT appeals. In particular, any documents that may indicate bias or other improper conduct. Also any documents that may put into question the ability of the RTA appointee to sit on the Tribunal, or that he was not properly appointed or any instructions he may…

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 Hutchinson v Roads & Traffic Authority 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: [2006] NSWADT 22
Decision Date: 01/27/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Hutchinson v Roads & Traffic Authority, the applicant, Mr Hutchinson, sought a review of a decision made by the Roads & Traffic Authority (RTA). The dispute centred around the RTA's decision regarding a traffic incident, and Mr Hutchinson sought further documentation related to the decision-making process. The matter was heard by the Tribunal, which was tasked with determining whether it had the jurisdiction to make a decision based on the applicant's amended request for documents.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to decide the matter based on the applicant's amended request for documents. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the Tribunal had the power to remit the reviewable decision under section 65 of the Administrative Decisions (Adjudication) Act 1989 (ADT Act), and if so, whether it should exercise its discretion to remit the decision.

The Tribunal found that it did not have the jurisdiction to make a decision based on the applicant's amended request for documents. The court further directed that within 21 days, the RTA was to provide written submissions on whether the Tribunal had the power to remit the reviewable decision under section 65 of the ADT Act, and if so, whether it should exercise its discretion to remit the decision. Mr Hutchinson was then to provide written submissions in reply within a further 21 days. The Tribunal intended to determine these questions "on the papers" in accordance with section 76 of the ADT Act. The Tribunal also provided that if either party wished to apply for costs, an application together with written submissions in support of the application was to be filed and served within 21 days of the date of this decision. Any response to an application for costs was to be filed and served within a further 21 days, and the Tribunal would determine any application for costs "on the papers" in accordance with section 76 of the ADT Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make a decision based on the applicant’s amended request for documents; 2. The Tribunal makes the following directions:; (a) Within 21 days of the date of this decision, the RTA is to provide written submissions on the following questions:; (i) does the Tribunal have power to remit the reviewable decision under s 65 of the ADT Act in the circumstances of this case?; (ii) if so, should the Tribunal exercise its discretion under s 65 to remit the decision? ; b) Within a further 21 days, Mr Hutchinson is to provide written submissions in reply on the same questions; c) The Tribunal will determine these questions “on the papers” in accordance with s 76 of the ADT Act.3 ; If either party wishes to apply for costs, an application together with written submissions in support of the application is to be filed and served within 21 days of the date of this decision. If either party wishes to respond to an application for costs, written submissions are to be filed and served within a further 21 days; The Tribunal will then determine any application for costs “on the papers” in accordance with s 76 of the ADT Act.

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.

CITATION:	Hutchinson v Roads & Traffic Authority [2006] NSWADT 22
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Rowan Hutchinson RESPONDENT Roads & Taffic Authority
FILE NUMBER:	053110
HEARING DATES:	20/10/05
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	10/20/2005
DATE OF DECISION:	01/27/2006
BEFORE:	Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President)
CATCHWORDS:	Jurisdiction
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Preliminary matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Freedom of Information Act 1989
CASES CITED:	Project Blue Sky v ABA [1998] 194 CLR 355
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT B Zipser, barrister RESPONDENT M Allars, barrister
ORDERS:	1. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make a decision based on the applicant’s amended request for documents; 2. The Tribunal makes the following directions:; (a) Within 21 days of the date of this decision, the RTA is to provide written submissions on the following questions:; (i) does the Tribunal have power to remit the reviewable decision under s 65 of the ADT Act in the circumstances of this case?; (ii) if so, should the Tribunal exercise its discretion under s 65 to remit the decision? ; b) Within a further 21 days, Mr Hutchinson is to provide written submissions in reply on the same questions; c) The Tribunal will determine these questions “on the papers” in accordance with s 76 of the ADT Act.3 ; If either party wishes to apply for costs, an application together with written submissions in support of the application is to be filed and served within 21 days of the date of this decision. If either party wishes to respond to an application for costs, written submissions are to be filed and served within a further 21 days; The Tribunal will then determine any application for costs “on the papers” in accordance with s 76 of the ADT Act.