Staats and Australian Archives

CATCHWORDS – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - application for reinstatement – adjournment request – procedure of proceedings in Tribunal - whether discretion should be exercised – matter adjourned

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ss 42A(1A), 43(2A)
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 s 13
Archives Act 1983 s 24
Freedom of Information Act 1982

Re Gibson and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] AATA 1679

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 1778

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL     )
  )          2007/3666
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION     )

Re STEVEN STAATS

Applicant

AndAUSTRALIAN ARCHIVES

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal:                   Deputy President S A Forgie
Date:  19 September 2007
Place:  Melbourne

Decision:The Tribunal has decided to grant the applicant’s application for an adjournment.

S A FORGIE
Deputy President

REASONS FOR DECISION

In a letter dated 20 April 1995, Mr Steven Staats withdrew or discontinued all applications that he then had in the Tribunal. He specifically referred to application numbered by the Tribunal as V1995/211. The effect of s 42A(1A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act) was that the Tribunal was taken to have dismissed all of Mr Staats’ applications, including No V1995/211, that were then current. Mr Staats has now asked the Tribunal to reinstate application No V1994/680 but, at his request, I adjourned the hearing of his application for reinstatement. He now asks me for written reasons for my decision. For the reasons I gave in Re Gibson and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship[1] I consider that Mr Staats is entitled to written reasons under s 13 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 but not under s 43(2A) of the AAT Act.

[1] [2007] AATA 1679 at [3]-[4]

There was some uncertainty as to the application of which Mr Staats is seeking to reinstate. That uncertainty centres partly on the fact that the Tribunal’s application No V1994/680 was finalised before Mr Staats withdrew his applications later in April 2005. It was an application to extend the time within which Mr Staats could seek review of a decision of the National Archives of Australian (Australian Archives) made on 26 June 1993 under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act). That application was finalised when Senior Member Handley refused, on 23 November 1994, Mr Staats’ application to extend time. The only application that was open in the Tribunal in April 2005 and that had been lodged by Mr Staats was that numbered V1994/1243. It was dismissed on 24 April 2005 when the Tribunal received Mr Staats’ withdrawal. The Tribunal has destroyed both applications and the files relating to them just as it has destroyed all other files lodged in 1994 and since finalised. It has done so in accordance with s 24 of the Archives Act 1983.

When his reinstatement application came on for hearing, the uncertainty continued. There was reference in the documents to 1994/595 but that would seem to be a reference of the Australian Archives rather than of the Tribunal. After some discussion among Mr Staats, Mr Davidson on behalf of the Australian Archives and myself in an attempt to identify the application of which Mr Staats sought reinstatement, Mr Staats asked for an adjournment. He wanted time to identify the correct application for himself. Part of his consideration would be based on any documents he received from Australian Archives under a request he has recently made to it under the FOI Act. His request relates to any documents held by Australian Archives in relation to the Tribunal file No V1994/680.

I decided to grant Mr Staats’ application for an adjournment for reinstatement for two reasons. First, he is unrepresented and he clearly needed an opportunity to gain a proper understanding of what had had happened in relation to his previous applications. Mr second reason relates to Mr Staats’ FOI request. Mr Staats thinks that his FOI request to the Australian Archives may also be relevant to him. It may or may not be relevant but I consider that I should give him an opportunity to have regard to any documents that he is given.

I certify that the four preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of
Deputy President S A Forgie,

Signed: ...............................................................

Jayne Haydon Associate

Date of Hearing  23 August 2007
Date of Decision  19 September 2007
For the Applicant  self represented
Solicitor for the Respondent         Mr J. Davidson
  Australian Government Solicitor

The case involved Steven Staats, who had previously withdrawn applications in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), and the Australian Archives. Staats sought to reinstate a particular application that he had withdrawn, namely application number V1994/680. This application pertained to an extension of time to seek review of a decision made by the National Archives of Australia under the Freedom of Information Act 1982. The application was dismissed by the AAT on 23 November 1994, and subsequently, Staats withdrew his applications in 2005. The Tribunal destroyed the files related to these applications in accordance with the Archives Act 1983.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Staats was entitled to written reasons for the decision to grant an adjournment, and if the AAT had the discretion to exercise its powers under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 to grant the adjournment. The court had to consider the procedural aspects of the proceedings in the AAT, specifically whether the discretion should be exercised in this case.

The AAT granted the application for an adjournment based on two main reasons. Firstly, Staats was unrepresented and needed time to fully understand the history of his previous applications. Secondly, Staats had recently made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 for any documents held by the Australian Archives in relation to the Tribunal file number V1994/680. The AAT considered it necessary to give Staats an opportunity to review any relevant documents he received from the Australian Archives, as they might be pertinent to his reinstatement application. The AAT determined that it was in the interests of justice to provide Staats with the adjournment to enable him to properly prepare for the hearing.

The AAT's decision was to grant the applicant's application for an adjournment, with written reasons provided for the decision. The AAT found that Staats was entitled to written reasons under section 13 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, but not under section 43(2A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. The AAT exercised its discretion to grant the adjournment based on the factors outlined above.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established