Kant v Australian Information Commissioner

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Kant v Australian Information Commissioner [2024] FCA 599 

File number:

VID 829 of 2023

Judgment of:

SNADEN J

Date of judgment:

11 June 2024

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – review of a decision of a registrar – review of decision to dismiss application seeking interlocutory relief – hearing de novo – decision affirmed   

Legislation:

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 35A

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B

Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) ss 6, 15, 80W

Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 (Cth) ss 121, 122

Cases cited:

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57

Totev v Sfar and Anor (2008) 167 FCR 193

Zdrilic and Anor v Hickie and Anor (2016) 246 FCR 532

Division:

General Division

Registry:

Victoria

National Practice Area:

Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Number of paragraphs:

28

Date of hearing:

Determined on the papers

Counsel for the Applicant:

The applicant was self-represented

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms K McInnes

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

VID 829 of 2023

BETWEEN:

JAN MAREK KANT

Applicant

AND:

THE AUSTRALIAN INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	SNADEN J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 JUNE 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The orders of Registrar Luxton that are the subject of the applicant’s interlocutory application originally filed 23 December 2023 be affirmed.

2.The applicant’s interlocutory application originally filed 23 December 2023 otherwise be dismissed.

3.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and pertaining to that interlocutory application, to be assessed in default of agreement in accordance with the court’s Costs Practice Note (GPN-COSTS).

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SNADEN J:

1. On 6 October 2023, the applicant, Mr Kant, filed an originating application seeking relief against the respondent pursuant to s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). It has since been amended. In its current form, the further amended originating application discloses that the relief that is sought is:

   (1)an investigation by the respondent into “interference, by multiple regulated entities, with my rights as prescribed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)…by public officials and other persons in conspiracy to hide evidence of corruption”;

   (2)that the respondent “find, secure, and make discoverable for relevant court proceedings all information” about said interference, as coordinated with various other federal and state government bodies;

   (3)orders that the respondent “refrain from taking action [pursuant to] (1) and (2), unless and until the Applicant requests the [respondent] to commence doing so”;

   (4)damages, including exemplary damages, in respect of tortious conduct; and

   (5)“[f]urther damages in lieu of costs”.

2. On 22 November 2023, Mr Kant filed an interlocutory application seeking an injunction against the respondent as follows (emphasis and citations corrected):

   The Applicant seeks an injunction under 80W(1) of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and orders commanding the Respondent to produce to the Applicant all information about him as is reasonably accessible to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.