KP v Narrandera Shire Council (No. 2) (GD)

[2011] NSWADTAP 32

Administrative Decisions Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	KP v Narrandera Shire Council (No. 2) (GD) [2011] NSWADTAP 32
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Decision date:	08 July 2011
Jurisdiction:	Appeal Panel - Internal
Before:	Magistrate N Hennessy, Deputy President S Montgomery, Judicial Member E Hayes, Non-Judicial Member
Decision:	The Respondent's application for costs is refused.
Catchwords:	COSTS - whether fair to award costs of appeal - whether no tenable basis in fact or law
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Freedom of Information Act 1989 Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998
Category:	Costs
Parties:	KP (Appellant) Narrandera Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel M A Robinson (Respondent) KP (Appellant - in person) Henningham Law (Respondent)
File Number(s):	109050
Decision under appeal	Citation: KP v Narrandera Shire Council [2010] NSWADT 60 KP v Narrandera Shire Council [2010] NSWADT 206 Before: General Division File Number(s): 083362

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1. APPEAL PANEL (N HENNESSY, LCM (DEPUTY PRESIDENT), S MONTGOMERY (JUDICIAL MEMBER), E HAYES (NON-JUDICIAL MEMBER)): Narrandera Shire Council has applied for KP to pays its costs of proceedings in the Appeal Panel. The application is refused. This decision has been made 'on the papers' following written submissions from both parties: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 ( ADT Act ), s 76.

1. KP appealed to the Appeal Panel against a decision of the Tribunal under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 ( PPIP Act ). The Appeal Panel dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Tribunal's decision.

1. The background to these proceedings is that on 26 February 2007 an employee of the Council wrote a 'confidential' internal memorandum to the General Manager. The subject of the memorandum was observations the author had made about KP's behaviour and her concerns about that behaviour.

1. KP applied under the now repealed Freedom of Information Act 1989 ( FOI Act ) for access to a copy of the memorandum. KP withdrew that application after Council agreed to provide him with a redacted version. Information in the memorandum that could lead to the identification of the author was deleted. Council states in its submission to the Appeal Panel on costs that the fact that KP withdrew his application "preserved the exempt status of the memorandum".

1. Subsequently KP applied under the PPIP Act for a review of certain conduct relating to the collection, retention, accuracy and use of the personal information in the memorandum (the "conduct application"). The Tribunal concluded that because Council had not carried out an internal review of the conduct and KP had not waited the necessary 60 days before applying to the Tribunal, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to review the conduct identified in the conduct application. The Appeal Panel agreed with that conclusion.

1. KP also applied to the Tribunal for access to the memorandum under s 14 of the PPIP Act (the "access application"). Section 14 requires Council to provide people such as KP with access to personal information that it holds about them. The Tribunal ordered that Council give KP another copy of the redacted version of the memorandum in order to fulfil its obligations under s 14. Ultimately KP did not appeal to the Appeal Panel against that decision.

1. At the hearing before the Appeal Panel the only ground of appeal which KP pressed was that the Tribunal had erred in law by not determining whether the conduct identified in the "conduct application" had breached various provisions of the PPIP Act , other than s 14.

Application for costs

1. The general rule in the Tribunal is that each party pays his or her own costs: ADT Act , s 88. An award of costs may only be made if the Tribunal is satisfied that it is "fair" to do so. In determining that issue, the Tribunal is to have regard to specific matters as well as any other matter that it considers relevant.

1. Council submitted that it was fair to award costs in this case because of the relative strength of the claims made by each of the parties and the fact that the claims made by KP had "no tenable basis in fact or law": ADT Act , s 88(1A)(c). In support of that submission, Council says that none of the grounds of appeal identified by KP in the original Notice of Appeal or in either of the two Further Notices of Appeal had any substance.

1. The Appeal Panel found that the only ground of appeal on which KP ultimately relied did not constitute an error of law. The Panel found that the Tribunal below had interpreted the PPIP Act correctly. Council had not conducted an internal review of the conduct identified in KP's conduct application. In those circumstances, KP needed to wait 60 days from the date Council received that application before applying to the Tribunal for a review of the conduct. Because he did not do so, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to review the conduct.

1. Council failed to respond to KP's conduct application. KP then applied to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that it did not have jurisdiction. That conclusion depended on the Tribunal making certain factual findings and interpreting both the PPIP Act and the ADT Act . While KP's appeal against that decision was unsuccessful, relatively complex legal and factual issues were involved. We are not satisfied that KP's appeal had no tenable basis in fact or law or that the lack of merit of his appeal means that it is fair that he pay council's costs.

1. Council also relied on a submission that, in the proceedings under the FOI Act, the Tribunal Member below "personally supervised and approved a redacted version of the 'exempt' document so as to maintain its status as an exempt document." Given that KP withdrew the proceedings under the FOI Act , we do not accept that the document has any such status. The Tribunal made no finding to that effect. In any event, KP did not proceed with his appeal against the Tribunal's decision under the PPIP Act to give him a further copy of the redacted version of the memorandum.

Order

The Respondent's application for costs is refused.

*********

Decision last updated: 08 July 2011