Marden v Pharmacy Council of New South Wales

In the case of Marden v Pharmacy Council of New South Wales, the dispute involved the applicant, who sought information under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) about a complaint made against her. The Pharmacy Council of New South Wales was the primary respondent, and the Information Commissioner was also a party to the proceedings. The matter was heard in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the applicant's application to the Tribunal was made within the statutory time limit. Another critical issue was the identification of the decisions before the Tribunal, specifically whether the internal review decision of the Pharmacy Council was the correct decision under review. The court also had to determine if the application to the Tribunal was made within the time limit and if the internal review decision was indeed the decision under review.

The court examined the procedural history of the case, noting that the applicant had initially sought a review of the decision to provide access to some information in the complaint and deny access to the remainder. The internal review decision provided access to some information and denied access to the remainder. The applicant then applied for review by the Information Commissioner, and subsequently, the applicant sought review by the Tribunal. The court had to determine whether the internal review decision was the decision under review and if the applicant's application to the Tribunal was within the time limit. The court found that the application was made within time and that the internal review decision was the decision under review.

The court ordered that the applicant must file and serve any submissions and evidence addressing the question of whether her application to the Tribunal was made within time by a specified date. The respondents and the Information Commissioner were also required to file and serve any submissions and evidence in response to the applicant's material by a later date. The court also directed that the parties consider whether the issues for determination could be adequately resolved without their presence. The parties were granted liberty to apply for extensions of time on three days' notice.