Singh and Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (Freedom of information)

In *Singh and Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (Freedom of information)*, Senior Member Emeritus Professor P A Fairall of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an interlocutory application by the Applicant seeking to consolidate his freedom of information review application with other related matters. The Applicant had requested information from the Respondent concerning his placement on a "Single Point of Contact Arrangement" (SPOC arrangement), and the Respondent had provided some documents with redactions made under sections 22 and 47F of the *Freedom of Information Act 1982* (Cth). The Applicant sought to have this application heard alongside other matters, which he contended involved the same parties, legislation, and issues.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it should exercise its discretion under section 33 of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth) to consolidate the Applicant's FOI review application with other existing applications. The Applicant argued that consolidation would serve the Tribunal's objectives and that the Respondent had inconsistently changed its position regarding consolidation. The Applicant also raised concerns about the Respondent's legal representation and claimed prejudice due to the Respondent's alleged change of stance.

The Tribunal refused the interlocutory application for consolidation. It reasoned that the Applicant's current application was discrete, concerning only the application of sections 22 and 47F of the FOI Act to five documents related to his SPOC arrangement. The Tribunal found that the issues involved were not extensive or complex and that the matter could be resolved more expediently if heard separately from the "Other Matters." While acknowledging the Respondent's change in position on consolidation, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had not substantiated his claim of prejudice with sufficient detail. Furthermore, the Tribunal stated that it was not its role to determine the Respondent's choice of legal representation. The Tribunal concluded that hearing the application separately would ensure its prompt resolution, thereby serving the Tribunal's guiding objectives under section 2A of the AAT Act.