Jackson v Residential Tenancies Authority - [2024] QCATA 31

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Jackson v Residential Tenancies Authority [2024] QCATA 31

3131PARTIES:

KERRY JACKSON

(applicant/appellant)

v

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AUTHORITY

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL176-23

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

21 March 2024

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member D J McGill SC

ORDERS:

1.     The appeal is dismissed.

2.     The decision of the Information Commissioner of 23 May 2023 is confirmed.

3.     If the respondent wants to apply for an order for costs of the appeal, it must file submissions in writing in support of the order sought, and give a copy of them by email to each of the associate to the Deputy President of the Tribunal and the appellant, within 21 days from the date of this decision.

4.     If no such submissions are filed, there will be no order as to costs of the appeal.

5.     If such submissions are filed, the appellant may file any submissions in writing in opposition to such an order, and give a copy of them to by email to each of the associate to the Deputy President and the lawyer for the respondent, within 21 days of the receipt of such submissions.

6.     If submissions as to costs are filed, the question of costs will be decided by the Appeal Tribunal without an oral hearing, under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 32.

7.     Liberty to apply as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – appeal from decision of the Information Commissioner under the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) – where appeal solely on question of law – whether question of law raised by the appellant

Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) s 132

Adani Mining Pty Ltd v Information Commissioner [2020] QCATA 52
Allen v Queensland Building Services Authority [2024] QCA 24
Maksymiuk v Savage [2015] QCA 177
Powell v Queensland University of Technology [2018] 2 Qd R 234
Sibelco v Right to Information Commissioner [2017] QCATA 59

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Applicant:

Self represented

Respondent:

K Pitman of Crown Law

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is an appeal from a decision of the Information Commissioner. On 31 August 2022 the appellant applied to the respondent under the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) (“the Act”) for access to information about her supplied in connection with certain investigations.[1] On 10 October 2022 the respondent refused to disclose 241 pages of documents which met the terms of the request, on the basis that disclosure of the documents would be on balance contrary to the public interest.
[1]For convenience I shall refer to Ms Jackson as the appellant and the Residential Tenancy Authority as the respondent.
On 19 October 2022 the appellant sought external review of that decision by the Office of the Information Commissioner. On 23 May 2023 the Information Commissioner affirmed…

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 Jackson v Residential Tenancies 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: [2024] QCATA 31
Decision Date: 21 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jackson v Residential Tenancies Authority, the appellant, Jackson, brought an appeal against a decision made by the Information Commissioner under the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld). The appeal was focused solely on a question of law and pertained to the correctness of the Information Commissioner's interpretation of the Act. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was tasked with reviewing the legal issues presented in this appeal.

The primary legal issue before the QCAT was whether the appeal raised a question of law that warranted the Tribunal's attention. The appellant argued that the Information Commissioner had erred in their interpretation of the statutory provisions, leading to an incorrect decision. The respondent, the Residential Tenancies Authority, contended that the appeal did not present a question of law but was instead a matter of factual determination or statutory interpretation that was within the purview of the Information Commissioner.

The QCAT found that the appeal did not raise a question of law that required the Tribunal's intervention. The Tribunal held that the appeal was essentially a challenge to the Commissioner's interpretation of the Act, which fell outside the scope of what constitutes a question of law for the purposes of an appeal. As such, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the Information Commissioner.

The orders of the Tribunal were that the appeal was dismissed, the decision of the Information Commissioner dated 23 May 2023 was confirmed, and there would be no order as to costs unless the respondent chose to apply for such costs. If the respondent applied for costs, the appellant would have an opportunity to respond, and the question of costs would be decided by the Appeal Tribunal without an oral hearing. Additionally, the Tribunal granted liberty to apply for costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The decision of the Information Commissioner of 23 May 2023 is confirmed.

3. If the respondent wants to apply for an order for costs of the appeal, it must file submissions in writing in support of the order sought, and give a copy of them by email to each of the associate to the Deputy President of the Tribunal and the appellant, within 21 days from the date of this decision.

4. If no such submissions are filed, there will be no order as to costs of the appeal.

5. If such submissions are filed, the appellant may file any submissions in writing in opposition to such an order, and give a copy of them to by email to each of the associate to the Deputy President and the lawyer for the respondent, within 21 days of the receipt of such submissions.

6. If submissions as to costs are filed, the question of costs will be decided by the Appeal Tribunal without an oral hearing, under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 32.

7. Liberty to apply as to costs.

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.