Page v Southern Cross University - [2016] NSWCATAD 199

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Page v Southern Cross University [2016] NSWCATAD 199
Hearing dates: 14 April 2016
Date of orders: 31 August 2016
Decision date: 31 August 2016
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: S Montgomery, Senior Member
Decision:
The decisions under review are affirmed.

Catchwords: Government information – Processing charge – Advance deposit – Entitlement to discount – Whether discounts cumulative - refusal to deal with the access application
Legislation Cited: Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Cases Cited: Adco Constructions Pty Ltd v Goudappel & Anor (2014) 308 ALR 213
Bevege v Commissioner of Police NSW Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 22
Bridge Shipping Pty Ltd v Grand Shipping SA (1991) HCA 45, 173 CLR 231
BY v Director General, Attorney General's Department [2002] NSWADT 79
IW v City of Perth [1997] HCA 30; 191 CLR 1; (1997) 94 LGERA 224; (1997) 146 ALR 696; (1997) 71 ALJR 943
Minister Administering the Crown Lands ACT v Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council (No 2) [2001] NSWCA 28
National Tertiary Education Union v Southern Cross University [2015] NSWCATAD 151
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: James Page (Applicant)
Southern Cross University (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
J Page (Applicant in person)
SCU Legal Office (Respondent):

File Number(s): 1510627

Reasons for decision

Background

This is an application for review of a determination by Southern Cross University (“the Respondent” or “the University”) of an access application brought by Dr Page (“the Applicant”) under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) (“the GIPA Act”).
The Applicant lodged the access application which is the subject of these proceedings in October 2013. He sought numerous items of information and his access application was divided into categories identified alphabetically as Part A to Part K. He also provided detailed explanatory notes in relation to his request.
In November 2013, the Respondent notified the Applicant that it required an advance deposit. In a letter dated 15 November 2013 the Respondent explained:

This decision to charge processing fees has been made because of:
1.   the length of your request - 5 pages, 11 parts plus explanatory notes, 37 requests;
2.   the number of previous information requests that you have made which must be first considered to determine if you have previously requested the information set out in your Application - since 2006 you have made at least 6 privacy requests and 8 access applications (formal or informal);
3.   the age of the information and where it is located - some information requested is close to 7 years old and has been archived; and
4.    the number and intricacy of necessary third party consultations -10 non-employees of the University are referred to in your Application ...
…
Advance payment
The University has determined that it requires you to make an advance deposit of $2,460 of the processing charge pursuant to s.68 of the GIPA Act.
This decision to require an advance deposit has been made…

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 Page v Southern Cross University 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: [2016] NSWCATAD 199
Decision Date: 31 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Page v Southern Cross University, the applicant, Mr Page, sought access to certain documents held by Southern Cross University under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA). The dispute arose when the university refused to provide the documents unless an advance deposit of $1200 was made, citing a processing charge under the Act. Mr Page argued that he was entitled to a discount on this processing charge, as he was a Commonwealth concession cardholder, and sought a ruling on whether this discount was cumulative with other discounts available under the Act. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the discounts available under the GIPA Act were cumulative, allowing Mr Page to pay a reduced processing charge for the requested documents. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Commonwealth concession card discount could be applied in addition to other potential discounts, such as those for small businesses or educational institutions, which might otherwise apply to the processing charge. The court also needed to consider whether the university's refusal to deal with the access application due to the advance deposit requirement was justified under the Act.

The court found that the discounts available under the GIPA Act were not cumulative, and therefore, Mr Page was not entitled to a reduced processing charge based on his Commonwealth concession card status. Additionally, the court held that the university's requirement for an advance deposit was not unreasonable and was within the scope of the powers granted under the Act. Consequently, the decisions of the university to refuse the access application on the grounds of the advance deposit requirement were affirmed.

The court's decision upheld the university's actions and clarified that the discounts under the GIPA Act were not cumulative, thereby affirming the university's right to require an advance deposit for processing charges. No further orders were made beyond affirming the decisions under review.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decisions under review are affirmed.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Page v Southern Cross University [2016] NSWCATAD 199
Hearing dates:	14 April 2016
Date of orders:	31 August 2016
Decision date:	31 August 2016
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	S Montgomery, Senior Member
Decision:	The decisions under review are affirmed.
Catchwords:	Government information – Processing charge – Advance deposit – Entitlement to discount – Whether discounts cumulative - refusal to deal with the access application
Legislation Cited:	Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Cases Cited:	Adco Constructions Pty Ltd v Goudappel & Anor (2014) 308 ALR 213 Bevege v Commissioner of Police NSW Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 22 Bridge Shipping Pty Ltd v Grand Shipping SA (1991) HCA 45, 173 CLR 231 BY v Director General, Attorney General's Department [2002] NSWADT 79 IW v City of Perth [1997] HCA 30; 191 CLR 1; (1997) 94 LGERA 224; (1997) 146 ALR 696; (1997) 71 ALJR 943 Minister Administering the Crown Lands ACT v Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council (No 2) [2001] NSWCA 28 National Tertiary Education Union v Southern Cross University [2015] NSWCATAD 151
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	James Page (Applicant) Southern Cross University (Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: J Page (Applicant in person) SCU Legal Office (Respondent):
File Number(s):	1510627