SANDRA WOLFE and TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2009] AATA 767

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q 200100532

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		SANDRA WOLFE

Applicant

And TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Deputy President P E Hack SC

Date7 October 2009

PlaceBrisbane

Decision

The Tribunal:

(a) extends the time for the making of the application to 19 June 2001;

(b) dismisses the application pursuant to s 42A(5) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).

.........Signed..........

Deputy President

1. In September 2000 the applicant, Ms Sandra Wolfe, made an application to the respondent, Telstra Corporation Limited, for access to certain documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). That application was refused on 3 November 2000.

2. On 30 November 2000 Ms Wolfe made a complaint to the Ombudsman about Telstra’s decision. Additionally, on 1 December 2000, she applied to Telstra for internal review of the original decision. That application was partly successful and on 22 December 2000 certain documents were released however access was refused to a number of documents.

3. By letter dated 2 May 2001 the Ombudsman informed Ms Wolfe that no further action would be taken on her complaint. Ms Wolfe lodged the present application in the Tribunal on 19 June 2001 by which she sought review of Telstra’s decision of 22 December 2000. In circumstances that I will explain below that application has not yet been determined despite more than eight years having elapsed.

4. I am not presently concerned to determine the merits of the application. I am, instead, concerned to deal with Telstra’s application to dismiss the application summarily. Two bases for that application are advanced by Mr Batskos, the solicitor for Telstra.

5. First, it is said that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine the application made by Ms Wolfe because it was made outside the time limited by the Freedom of Information Act. Telstra had not earlier taken that point. The point is good but is capable of being cured by an application to extend time within which to make the application. Mr Pickard, the solicitor for Ms Wolfe, had instructions to make an application to extend time if I regarded it as necessary and Mr Batskos accepted that if such an application was made he would not oppose it.

6. It is enough to say that in my view an extension of time is necessary and that it ought be granted.

7. The real point of Telstra’s application is its contention that Ms Wolfe has failed to prosecute her application with the consequence, it is said, that it ought to be dismissed pursuant to s 42A(5) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). That subsection provides:

   “(5)If an applicant for a review of a decision fails within a reasonable time:

   (a)to proceed with the application; or

   (b)to comply with a direction by the Tribunal in relation to the application;

   the Tribunal may dismiss the application without proceeding to review the decision.”

8. Telstra contends that each of paragraphs (a) and…