Vranic v Director General, Department of Housing (GD)

[2001] NSWADTAP 24

Appeal Panel

CITATION:	Vranic v Director General, Department of Housing (GD) [2001] NSWADTAP 24
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Ljubica Vranic RESPONDENT Director General, Department of Housing
FILE NUMBER:	019018
HEARING DATES:	17/07/01
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	07/17/2001
DATE OF DECISION:	07/23/2001
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	Vranic v Director General, Department of Housing [2001] NSW ADT 60
BEFORE:	Hennessy N (Deputy President); Robinson MA - Judicial Member; Mapperson K - Member
CATCHWORDS:	no question of law identified
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL:	013033
DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	04/19/2001
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Freedom of Information Act 1989
CASES CITED:
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT C Valacos, solicitor
ORDERS:	Orders made on 17 July 2001: 1 Appeal dismissed.

1 On 3 May 2001, Ms Vranic appealed against a decision of the Tribunal made on 19 April 2001. The Tribunal’s decision affirmed the decision of the Director General, Department of Housing to give Ms Vranic access to a document with certain information deleted. The document is held on Ms Vranic’s tenancy file and is headed “Advice of Vacant Dwelling.” It contains personal information in respect of a previous tenant. Ms Vranic was given access to the document with the personal information deleted.

2 The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Director General not to give Ms Vranic access to those parts of the documents containing personal information about the previous tenant. The basis for that decision was that the information was exempt under the personal affairs exemption: Clause 6 to Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 1989.

3 The personal affairs exemption states that:

(1) A document is an exempt document if it contains matter the disclosure of which would involve the unreasonable disclosure of information concerning the personal affairs of any person (whether living or deceased).

(2) A document is not an exempt document by virtue of this clause merely because it contains information concerning the person by or on whose behalf an application for access to the document is being made.

4 The Tribunal found that the deleted information “can all reasonably be regarded as information relating to personal affairs which it would be unreasonable to disclose.”

Grounds of appeal

5 When asked to identify the “errors of law” in the Tribunal’s decision, Ms Vranic wrote that:
Original decision (please) subpoena Government Records Repositories
Who made decision and when, who and way (sic)
If this decision was made by other agency and be executed by Dep of Housing
This Shedule (sic) One which relating to me also relating to subsection 1 and 3. I am only one person not two and still life.
If this (public interest) relating to (money) receiving benefits on false pretences.
If this decision or any other relating to I been tormented; example you pay or be thrown out, eviction, tenancy tribunal, vacating premises in one week;
If this unexpurgated original document presiding judge have receiving because I never have neather (sic)
I requesting this original document come forward
All this rental history come forward because I suffer of that
I requesting this former tenant come forward as third party witness to this procedures
I as Ljubica Vranic never give to nobody consent written or verbal to work on my behalf with out mine (sic) knowledge. I never nominated nobody.

6 The respondent’s reply was, in part, that “The Notice of Appeal discloses no question of law.”

Relevant legislation

7 The provisions of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (ADT Act) relating to appeals states that:
(1) A party to proceedings in which an appealable decision of the Tribunal is made may appeal to the Tribunal constituted by an Appeal Panel.
(2) An appeal:
(a) may be made on any question of law, and
(b) with the leave of the Appeal Panel, may extend to a review of the merits of the appealable decision.
8 Ms Vranic did not apply for leave to extend her appeal to the merits of the case. She must identify a question of law for the Appeal Panel’s consideration. None of the matters outlined above under the heading “Grounds of Appeal” constitute a question of law. Despite explaining to Ms Vranic during the hearing that the Appeal Panel could not proceed unless a question of law was identified, Ms Vranic was unable to do so. In these circumstances the appeal must be dismissed.

9 The Tribunal tried to explain to Ms Vranic the nature of the document in dispute. We also listened to her explanation of why she thought that she was entitled to have access to the document. She maintained that it was her human right to have access to the document. We explained that we could only act in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Decisions Act 1997 and the Freedom of Information Act 1989. Ms Vranic appeared to understand the Appeal Panel’s position.