VZ v University of Newcastle

[2009] NSWADT 17

CITATION:	VZ v University of Newcastle [2009] NSWADT 17
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT VZ RESPONDENT University of Newcastle
FILE NUMBER:	063235
HEARING DATES:	21 February 2007, 4 - 5 October 2007, 3 - 5 March 2008, 8 April 2008
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	8 April 2008
DATE OF DECISION:	27 January 2009
BEFORE:	Wilson R - Judicial Member
LEGISLATION CITED:	Freedom of Information Act 1989
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT VZ RESPONDENT University of Newcastle
ORDERS:	The decision under review is affirmed.

1 The applicant commenced these proceedings pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1989 seeking a review of a determination made by the respondent under that Act. The proceedings were prepared and heard together with other litigation between the parties in the Tribunal (proceedings 063072), although as a separate matter.

2 During the course of the hearing it became common ground that the applicant had been granted access to all of the documents which had initially been the subject of exemption claims (transcript 04.10.07 pages 10 ff). The consequence is that there is no issue for the Tribunal to determine that has any utility as far as the applicant is concerned.

3 The respondent however, does not concede that its exemption claims are without merit. It has granted access to the applicant in the exercise of its discretionary powers in an endeavour to resolve the proceedings expeditiously. This is a commendable course for respondents to take when the circumstances are apposite.

4 In these circumstances, the correct and preferable determination is to affirm the decision under review.

5 At the directions hearing on 08.04.08 the applicant sought an adjournment of the proceedings to enable him to have access to documents returnable upon a subpoena issue by him in other proceedings against the respondent in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The documents sought by this subpoena relate to a separate grievance that the applicant has made with the respondent. The adjournment application was refused on that day, the Tribunal indicating that it would publish its reasons in the course of its final decision. The adjournment was refused as the respondent has allowed access to all documents the subject of the proceedings in the Tribunal. Further, the applicant argued that perusal of the documents would assist him in relation to a further privacy matter that he had pending in the Tribunal. Even if this be so, it has no relevance to the current proceedings under consideration. Consequently, there is no utility in granting the adjournment.

6 The Tribunal notes that the applicant, should he wish to do so, will seek the respondent’s consideration of amendment to his records by separate application.