Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Jaffarie v Workers Compensation Commission [2016] NSWCATAD 256 Hearing dates: 2 June 2016 Date of orders: 11 November 2016 Decision date: 11 November 2016 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: S Montgomery, Senior Member Decision: (1) The decision under review is affirmed.
(2) The application for a referral pursuant to section 112 of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 is refused.Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – access to government information – access application – whether the Workers Compensation Commission is a tribunal – reasonableness of searches - excluded information Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009Cases Cited: BSU v Workers Compensation Commission [2015] NSWCATAD 125
Mino v Legal Aid NSW [2015] NSWCATAD 245
Orellana-Fuentes v Standard Knitting Mill Pty Limited & Anor; Carey v Blasdom Pty Limited T/as Ascot Freightlines & Anor [ 2003] NSWCA 146
Saggers v Environment Protection Authority [2013] NSWADT 204; Shoebridge v The Office of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services [2014] NSWCATAD 189.
Shepherd and Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning [1994] QICmr 7, (1994) 1 QAR 464
Zonnevylle v NSW Department of Finance & Services [2016] NSWCATAD 47Category: Principal judgment Parties: Sayed Akbar Jaffarie (Applicant)
Workers Compensation Commission (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
B Tronson (Respondent)
P Buttar (Applicant)
Workers Compensation Commission (Respondent)
File Number(s): 1610067
REASONS FOR DECISION
-
The Applicant has sought access to information from the Respondent under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (“the GIPA Act”). His initial request was for "all records your office is holding the records and government information your office is holding".
-
At the request of the Respondent's Right to Information Officer, Mr Geoffrey Cramp, the Applicant clarified his request as follows:
I am asking for all records and information in your possession in respect of my matter not copied to my solicitor Buttar Caldwell and company or their predecessor.
I want all file loads and telephone records and all records on your database correspondence enter with insurance company and employer's lawyers and WIRO and WorkCover.
Please advise me if Mr. Roach is a judicial officer and whether his records are also available under GIPA.
-
Mr Cramp understood the Applicant's access application to be an application for copies of his files and correspondence with the Workers Compensation Independent Review Officer (“WIRO”) and WorkCover. In response to that request Mr Cramp advised:
I will copy the four commission files for you.
I will also search for any correspondence with the WIRO and WorkCover in relation to your matters.
Mr Roach is a deputy President and it is possible that any notes, etc that he made while determining your appeal would not be available to you under GIPA, I won't know until I see what is on the file.
-
The four Commission files were copied and delivered to the Applicant.
-
The Applicant has made an application to the Tribunal for external review of the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Jaffarie v Workers Compensation Commission 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2016] NSWCATAD 256
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court first examined the definition of a tribunal in the Act and considered the functions and powers of the Workers Compensation Commission. It found that the Commission met the criteria to be classified as a tribunal. Regarding the searches, the court assessed the reasonableness of the Commission’s efforts, taking into account the nature of the information sought and the resources available. The court concluded that the Commission had conducted a reasonable search in line with its obligations under the Act.
Consequently, the court upheld the Commission's decision to deny access to the information. The court affirmed the Commission's characterisation as a tribunal and found that the searches were reasonable. The applicant's argument that the Commission should be referred to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal for further review was rejected. The court also dismissed the application for a referral under section 112 of the Act, finding no basis for such a referral.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The decision under review is affirmed.
(2) The application for a referral pursuant to section 112 of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 is refused.
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.