Administrative Decisions Tribunal
New South Wales
Case Title: Miriani v NSW Police Force Medium Neutral Citation: [2012] NSWADT 149 Hearing Date(s): 3 July 2012 Decision Date: 03 July 2012 Jurisdiction: General Division Before: S Montgomery, Judicial Member Decision: Pursuant to section 73(5)(g)(iv) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 the matters are dismissed for want of prosecution. Catchwords: Dismissal for want of prosecution Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009Cases Cited: Miriani v NSW Police Force [2012] NSWADT 78
Witten v Lombard Australia (1968) 88 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 405Texts Cited: Category: Principal judgment Parties: Joe Miriani (Applicant)
NSW Police Force (Respondent)Representation - Counsel: - Solicitors: No appearance for the Applicant
Sparke Helmore (Respondent)File number(s): 113153 & 113185 Publication Restriction:
REASONS FOR DECISION
GENERAL DIVISION (S MONTGOMERY, (JUDICIAL MEMBER)): On 3 July 2012 I dismissed these applications commenced by Mr Miriani ("the Applicant"). The applications were dismissed pursuant to section 73(5)(g)(iv) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 ("the ADT Act") for want of prosecution. On that occasion I gave brief reasons for the decision. The Applicant has sought written reasons for the decision and these reasons are provided in response to that request.
Background
The chronology of events leading up to the dismissal of the applications is relevant. It indicates the lack of progress in the prosecution of the matter. I will set it out in some detail.
Matter No. 113153
The Applicant applied to the Respondent under section 41 of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 ("the GIPA Act") for access to 16 items of information.
On 7 October 2010, the Respondent wrote to the Applicant under section 58(1)(e) and section 60(1)(a) of the GIPA Act and asked him to provide further particulars in regard to the access application.
On 20 October 2010, the Applicant wrote to the Respondent and provided some further information with respect to some of the items of information sought, but did not otherwise refine or reduce the scope of the access application.
On 1 November 2010, the Respondent determined to release to the Applicant some of the information that he sought.
The Respondent to refused to provide the balance of the information sought on the basis that dealing with the access application would amount to an unreasonable and substantial diversion of the Respondent's resources, under section 60(1)(a) of the GIPA Act.
The Applicant exercised his right to have the decision reviewed by the Information Commissioner ("the OIC") pursuant to section 89 of the GIPA Act. The OIC made a final review on 20 May 2011 and agreed with the Respondent's decision to refuse to provide access to the majority of the information.
The Applicant did not make an application for internal review to the Respondent but lodged an application to the Tribunal for an external review of the Respondent's decision.
Matter No. 113185
The Applicant applied to the Respondent under section 41 of the GIPA Act for access…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Miriani v NSW Police Force 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2012] NSWADT 149
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The tribunal examined the circumstances leading to the delay and considered whether the applicant had demonstrated a satisfactory explanation for the delay or shown a likelihood of being able to proceed with the application within a reasonable time. It was noted that there had been a significant lapse in time since the application was filed, and the applicant had not taken any steps to prosecute the application during this period. Additionally, the applicant's correspondence with the tribunal did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The tribunal found that the delay was unreasonable and that the applicant had not shown any prospect of being able to proceed with the application within a reasonable time. The tribunal concluded that the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution, as the delay was unjustified and there was no likelihood of the applicant being able to proceed with the application in the future.
Based on the findings, the tribunal ordered that the matters be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to section 73(5)(g)(iv) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997. The tribunal emphasised the importance of timely prosecution of applications and the need for applicants to provide satisfactory explanations for any delays. The dismissal of the application highlighted the tribunal's commitment to ensuring that proceedings are conducted efficiently and that resources are not wasted on applications that are not being pursued in a timely manner.
Orders
Orders of the court
Pursuant to section 73(5)(g)(iv) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 the matters are dismissed for want of prosecution.
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.