Rinaldi v Department of Justice and Attorney-General (Right to Information and Privacy)

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Rinaldi v Department of Justice and Attorney-General (Right to Information and Privacy) [2023] QCATA 136

PARTIES:

DION RINALDI

(applicant/appellant)

v

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL (RIGHT TO INFORMATION AND PRIVACY)

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL318-23

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

8 November 2023

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Mellifont, President

ORDERS:

1. Application of the respondent filed 25 October 2023 dismissed.

2. There be no order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where a party seeks leave to be legally represented in an appeal under s 119 of the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) – whether there is a right to legal representation without leave of the Tribunal

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 43(2)(b)(iii)

Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld), s 119, s 122

McCrystal v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2023] QCATA 133, followed

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 28 September 2023, Mr Rinaldi filed in the Tribunal an application seeking the review of a decision by the Office of the Information Commissioner (“the IC”). The appellant named the IC as respondent.
On 3 November 2023, I issued an order that the IC be removed as respondent and the Department of Justice and Attorney-General (Right to Information and Privacy) be added as the respondent.
The matter comes before me as, on 25 October 2023, the Department of Justice and Attorney-General (Right to Information and Privacy) filed in the Tribunal an interlocutory application seeking leave to be legally represented under section 43 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (“the QCAT Act”). Mr Rinaldi consents to that application.
Section 43(2)(b)(iii) of the QCAT Act provides that a party may be represented if an enabling Act states the person may be represented. Here, the relevant enabling Act is the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) (“the RTI Act”), which confers jurisdiction on QCAT to hear appeals on a question of law under section 119 of the RTI Act.
Section 122(2) of the RTI Act provides that:
For the QCAT Act, section 43(2)(b)(iii), a person may be represented before QCAT by a lawyer on a reference of a question of law under section 118 or on an appeal on a question of law under section 119.
Accordingly, the parties have a right to legal representation in the proceeding.[1] As such, the application of the respondent filed 25 October 2023 is dismissed.
[1]McCrystal v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2023] QCATA 133 at [7].
I make no orders as to costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Rinaldi, the appellant, and the Department of Justice and Attorney-General, the respondent, before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The appellant, Rinaldi, sought leave to be legally represented in an appeal against a decision of the Department of Justice and Attorney-General, which was a response to an application for access to information under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld). The appeal was brought under section 119 of the Act, and the central issue before the Tribunal was whether there exists a right to legal representation without the Tribunal's leave.

The Tribunal considered the provisions of section 119(2) of the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) which allows for the appeal of a decision made under the Act, but does not explicitly provide for legal representation. The appellant argued that the absence of a specific provision allowing legal representation in the Act implied a right to such representation. Conversely, the respondent contended that the absence of such a provision in the Act meant that leave of the Tribunal was required for legal representation. The Tribunal examined the nature of the proceedings, the complexity of the issues, and the potential impact on the administration of justice in reaching its decision.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal noted that the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) was designed to be accessible and user-friendly, aiming to facilitate public access to information. The Tribunal held that the absence of an explicit right to legal representation in the Act did not imply such a right; rather, it reinforced the requirement for leave of the Tribunal before legal representation could be permitted. The Tribunal emphasised the need for judicial economy and the importance of maintaining the integrity of the appeal process, which necessitated that leave be sought before legal representation was allowed. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's application for leave to be legally represented.

The Tribunal's final orders were that the respondent's application filed on 25 October 2023 be dismissed, and there be no order as to costs. This decision underscores the principle that in the absence of an explicit provision for legal representation in the Act, leave of the Tribunal is a necessary prerequisite for such representation in appeals under section 119 of the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld).

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established