Joseph v Kiama Municipal Council

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

Joseph v Kiama Municipal Council [2022] NSWCATAD 392

Hearing dates:

11 November 2022

Date of orders:

9 December 2022

Decision date:

09 December 2022

Jurisdiction:

Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division

Before:

M Griffin, Senior Member

Decision:

The Tribunal refuses the application for summary dismissal.

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW- summary dismissal-freedom of information- government information public access- whether application is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance-Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)

Legislation Cited:

Administrative Decisions Review Act (NSW) 1997
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009

Cases Cited:

Choi v University of Technology Sydney [2019] NSWCATAD 176

Zonnevylle v Secretary, Department of Education [2021] NSWCATAD 361

General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69; (1964) 112 CLR 125

Prakash v Bobb Borg Enterprises Pty Ltd [1999] NSWADT 73

Department of Communities and Justice v Tebb [2020] NSWCATAP 179

Miriani v Transport for NSW [2021] NSWCATAD 16

Texts Cited:

None cited

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Michael Joseph (Applicant)
Kiama Municipal Council (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel
R Coffey (Respondent)

Applicant (Self-represented)
Bradley Allen Love Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2022/00236000, 2022/00235607, 2022/00251353

Publication restriction:

None

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1. This is an application for summary dismissal of proceedings. Kiama Municipal Council (the Respondent)) seeks the summary dismissal of three applications for administrative review made by Mr Joseph (the Applicant). Those applications relate to three decisions made by the Respondent which refused access requests made by the Applicant under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (the GIPA Act).

Background

2. This matter arises out of a property and planning dispute between neighbours in the Council area. There is an extensive history of related litigation before the Courts. It is described by the parties as a “long and exhausting history”.

Respondent’s submissions

3. The Respondent submits the applications are:

1. Frivolous and or vexatious as they have been instituted with the intention of annoying, harassing or embarrassing the Spencers [neighbours of the Applicant],

2. Vexatious as they are seeking to relitigate and / or reagitate matters which were the subject of the earlier Land and Environment Court proceedings which were resolved by agreement,

3. Motivated by unsupported allegations of bias and or collusion between the Respondent (and its employees and or agents) and the Spencers, as evidenced by the Applicant's submissions attached to the Tribunal applications, and

4. Misconceived or lacking in substance to the extent that they seek information which has already been provided to the Applicant.

4. In written submissions, the Respondent states, under the heading Evidence, at paragraph 52 et seq:

In the substantive proceedings, the Applicant has filed an affidavit which is 151 pages in length and comprises of 527 paragraphs. The affidavit annexes four lever arch folders of material... At [14] of his affidavit, the Applicant has cast a very wide net in respect to the complaints about the access decisions and conduct of the Respondents officers. To deal with it will…