Mester and Centrelink - [2004] AATA 354

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 354
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No V2003/699

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re JOHN MESTER AND
MARINA MESTER

Applicant

And

CENTRELINK

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mrs Joan Dwyer, Senior Member
Date6 April 2004
PlaceMelbourne

Decision
1.        The Tribunal sets aside the decisions under review. In substitution the Tribunal decides that the following steps be taken to find further documents covered by the applicants’ requests under the Freedom of Information Act 1982:

(a)      Enquiries be made of an appropriate person within Centrelink, who is familiar with the disability support pension area to find out what additional Centrelink computer screens it would be appropriate to search for records of letters between Mr Mester and Centrelink between 13 March 1998 and 31 January 2001; and those screens be searched to see if any further letters can be located;

(b)      Enquiries be made of an appropriate person within Centrelink, who is familiar with procedures in the disability support pension area between 13 March 1998 and 31 January 2001, to find out what letters he or she would expect would have been sent to Mr Mester between 13 March 1998 and 31 January 2001, and in particular whether there were any standard form letters in that time sent to all people who were in receipt of part disability support pension, and, if so, copies of such standard form letters be provided to Mr Mester;

(c)       Evidence be sought as to whether the activity statements from the Ballarat Office covering the period 1 March 1996 to 31 March 1997 and stored in batches have been destroyed in accordance with the Archives Act 1983 and if so, evidence as to the dates of destruction be obtained.

2.        The Tribunal reserves liberty to the parties to apply to have the matter brought on for further hearing if there should be difficulty or undue delay in taking the steps referred to in paragraph 1 of this decision.

[sgd] Mrs Joan Dwyer
Senior Member

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION – adequacy of searches – refusal of access to documents under s 24A Freedom of Information Act 1982 where all reasonable steps have been taken to find documents – relevance of reasons for making request – meaning of “reasonable steps” – reasonableness of steps taken – evidence that further documents could have been available but outside expertise of officer conducting search – evidence that further documents could be in storage – finding that reasonable steps not taken – decision set aside.
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, s 37.
Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 3, 11, 24A, 55, 61.
Archives Act 1983.
Re Cristovao and Secretary, Department of Social Security (1998) 53 ALD 138
Re Langer and Telstra Corporation Limited [2002] AATA 341
REASONS FOR DECISION

6 April 2004 Mrs Joan Dwyer, Senior Member
1. This is an application for review under s 55 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (“the Act”). The review is of decisions made on internal…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mester and Centrelink 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] AATA 354
Decision Date: 6 April 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mester and Centrelink, the parties involved were Mr Mester and Centrelink, with the dispute concerning the discovery of documents related to Mr Mester's disability support pension applications. The case was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which was tasked with reviewing Centrelink's handling of Mr Mester's requests under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act).

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Centrelink had adequately searched for and disclosed all relevant documents pertaining to Mr Mester's applications for disability support pension. Specifically, the Tribunal needed to determine if Centrelink had appropriately identified and searched all potential sources of records, and if there were any standard form letters that should have been disclosed to Mr Mester. Additionally, the Tribunal considered whether Centrelink had properly managed the archival process for certain activity statements in accordance with the Archives Act 1983.

The Tribunal found that Centrelink had not sufficiently addressed Mr Mester's FOI requests. It was determined that further searches needed to be conducted to locate any additional correspondence between Mr Mester and Centrelink during the specified period. The Tribunal also found that Centrelink had not provided Mr Mester with any standard form letters that should have been disclosed. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that Centrelink had not adequately documented the destruction of certain activity statements, necessitating further investigation into their archival practices.

The Tribunal's decision was to set aside the original decisions made by Centrelink and mandated specific actions to address the identified deficiencies. This included directing Centrelink to search additional computer screens for relevant correspondence, to provide any standard form letters sent during the relevant period, and to ascertain whether certain activity statements had been destroyed in compliance with the Archives Act 1983. The Tribunal also reserved the right for the parties to reapply for a hearing if there were significant delays or difficulties in executing the ordered steps.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Tribunal sets aside the decisions under review. In substitution the Tribunal decides that the following steps be taken to find further documents covered by the applicants’ requests under the Freedom of Information Act 1982:

(a) Enquiries be made of an appropriate person within Centrelink, who is familiar with the disability support pension area to find out what additional Centrelink computer screens it would be appropriate to search for records of letters between Mr Mester and Centrelink between 13 March 1998 and 31 January 2001; and those screens be searched to see if any further letters can be located;

(b) Enquiries be made of an appropriate person within Centrelink, who is familiar with procedures in the disability support pension area between 13 March 1998 and 31 January 2001, to find out what letters he or she would expect would have been sent to Mr Mester between 13 March 1998 and 31 January 2001, and in particular whether there were any standard form letters in that time sent to all people who were in receipt of part disability support pension, and, if so, copies of such standard form letters be provided to Mr Mester;

(c) Evidence be sought as to whether the activity statements from the Ballarat Office covering the period 1 March 1996 to 31 March 1997 and stored in batches have been destroyed in accordance with the Archives Act 1983 and if so, evidence as to the dates of destruction be obtained.

2. The Tribunal reserves liberty to the parties to apply to have the matter brought on for further hearing if there should be difficulty or undue delay in taking the steps referred to in paragraph 1 of this decision.

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.

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		JOHN MESTER AND MARINA MESTER