Vranic v Director, Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales (GD)

[2001] NSWADTAP 23

Appeal Panel

CITATION:	Vranic v Director, Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales (GD) [2001] NSWADTAP 23
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Ljubica Vranic RESPONDENT Director, Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales RESPONDENT Director, Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales
FILE NUMBER:	019017
HEARING DATES:	17/07/01
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	07/17/2001
DATE OF DECISION:	07/23/2001
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	Vranic v Director, Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales [2001] NSW ADT 59
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:	013026
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 J Walker, 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, Legal Aid Commission of NSW to give Ms Vranic access to a document with certain information deleted. The document is an archival record sheet headed “The Government Records Repository, Details of Cartons Packed for Storage in the Government Records Repositories.” The document lists all files held in the archival storage box in which Ms Vranic’s file was held. Ms Vranic was given access to the document with other people’s names and file numbers deleted.

2 The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Director of the Legal Aid Commission not to give Ms Vranic access to those parts of the documents containing other people’s names and file numbers. The basis for that decision was that the information was exempt under the personal affairs exemption, (Clause 6 to Schedule 1 of the FOI Act) the confidentiality exemption, (Clause 13 of Schedule 1 to the FOI Act and the secrecy exemption (Clause 12 of Schedule 1 to the FOI Act).

3 The Tribunal relied on the personal affairs and confidentiality exemptions. 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 confidentiality exemption states that:
A document is an exempt document
(a) if it contains matter the disclosure of which would found an action for breach of confidence, or
(b) if it contains matter the disclosure of which:

(i) would otherwise disclose information obtained in confidence, and
(ii) could reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of such information to the Government or to an agency, and
(iii) would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.
5 In relation to the people whose names appeared on the document, the Tribunal found that “it would be an unreasonable intrusion into their personal affairs for their identities to be made known to the applicant.” The Tribunal also found that disclosure would breach the confidentiality of the solicitor client relationship and that there were no public interest factors that might justify the Tribunal in setting aside the decision.

Grounds of appeal

6 In the Notice of Appeal, Ms Vranic identified the “errors of law” in the Tribunal’s decision in the following terms:
No altered original decision after internal review
Original decision only
All ‘original decision’ if they are more in force
All decision been made relating to diferent (sic) agency
On what ground this decision been (sic) made
When this decision been made (date’s) why I never been informed about
When personels (sic) in authority exicise (sic) (power) and produce unjust decision
This decision are unfair and (obstructing) natural law take place
Present decision take my fundamental human rights and give to public (public interest at large)
This decision have been violating my personal privacy and jeopard (sic) my safety, relating public interest party (drug related0
All administrative law (juristriction) (sic) which apply to me be abolish because been misleading and discriminating.
I requesting to be see as individual on my own value as a person (human) not what others perceiving me.

7 The respondent’s reply was, in part, that “The Notice of Appeal does not identify any errors of law.”

Relevant legislation

8 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.

Decision and reasons

9 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.

10 During the hearing we asked Ms Vranic to tell us what her concerns were. She said that she wanted to know the names of the people in the document. We tried to explain to Ms Vranic in the hearing that the information she was asking for related to other people who were clients of the Legal Aid Commission and that they had nothing to do with her. Ms Vranic did not seem to understand or accept that this was the case. She became frustrated and angry when we asked her if she had anything else she wanted to say. It is unfortunate that Ms Vranic did not seem to understand the Appeal Panel’s role or that she was expected to put a legal argument to the Panel.