Stiles v Information Commissioner

[2021] QCATA 152

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Stiles v Information Commissioner  [2021] QCATA 152

PARTIES:

NOEL EDWARD STILES

(applicant/appellant)

v

OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER CENTRAL SEQ DISTRIBUTOR-RETAILER AUTHORITY TRADING AS URBAN UTILITIES

(respondents)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR159-21

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

17 December 2021

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member D J McGill SC

ORDERS:

1.       Order that the first respondent be removed as a party from this proceeding.

2.       Direct that the proceeding continue against the second respondent as respondent.

3.       No order as to costs. 

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – parties to proceeding – appeal to Appeal Tribunal from decision of Information Commissioner – Information Commissioner made respondent – other contradictor available – Information Commissioner removed as a party

Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) s 132

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 25(b), s 40(1)(b)

Walker Group Holdings Pty Ltd v Queensland Information Commissioner (No 2) [2021] QCATA 84

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

First Respondent:

Self-represented

Second Respondent:

Hopgood Ganim Lawyers

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This is an application in an appeal from a decision of the Information Commissioner under the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) (“the Act”) s 132. By that section, the appeal is only on a question of law, and goes to the Appeal Tribunal which has jurisdiction under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (“the QCAT Act”) s 25(b). It is therefore not an application to the review jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the QCAT Act Chapter 2 Part 1 Division 3, and so s 40(1)(b) does not apply.

2. The appeal was incorrectly commenced by the appellant filing in the Tribunal an Application to review a decision in Form 23, as a result of which it was not given an APL number.  On 20 July 2021 the then President of the Tribunal, Daubney J, directed that that Application be treated as an Application for leave to appeal or appeal.  The first respondent, the Office of the Information Commissioner, was named as the only respondent to the Application, and at the same time his Honour directed that the second respondent be joined as a respondent in the proceedings. 

3. The first respondent on 27 September 2021 filed an application seeking a direction that it be removed as a party to the proceeding.  That application is now before me.  It is based on the conclusion I arrived at in Walker Group Holdings Pty Ltd v Queensland Information Commissioner (No 2) [2021] QCATA 84, that the Information Commissioner had been incorrectly made a party to that proceeding, although by the time the point was taken it was too late for it to be removed as a party. (The point was not taken until an application was made by the successful appellant for an…