Marr, G.N. v Telstra Corporation Ltd [1995] FCA 214

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. G 284 of 1994 GENERAL DIVISION ) Between: GEOFFREY NORMAN MARR Applicant And: TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT EINFELD J SYDNEY 31 MARCH 1995

The applicant appeals from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) under section 44 of the Tribunal's Act (AAT Act) refusing access to certain documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (the Act). The applicant was unrepresented at the hearing before me, but his written submissions, whilst not formulated perhaps as succinctly as might to be expected of a legal practitioner, are coherent and on the whole presented his case with force and cogency. The respondent was represented by senior counsel. The proceedings before the Tribunal On 31 March 1993 the applicant and another person applied under the Act for access to certain documents of the respondent. As a result of that request, and a subsequent request for internal review of the original decision, access to some of the requested documents was provided, part access was granted to others, and access to other documents was denied. On 3 August 1993 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the decision in respect of the documents to which access was denied or restricted. In a comprehensive judgment delivered ex tempore the Tribunal released a considerable portion of the disputed documents and reaffirmed the decision of the respondent in respect of a minority of the documents. It became apparent during cross examination by the applicant in the proceedings before the Tribunal that certain documents properly the subject of the applicant's request had not been discovered or considered by the respondent. As a result the Tribunal made a further direction at the conclusion of the hearing that each party make written submissions and if necessary file additional evidence in respect of these additional documents. Pursuant to these orders additional evidence and submissions were received by the Tribunal, including some lengthy submissions by the applicant. It is clear from those submissions that the applicant was concerned that the respondent had not, and did not intend to, produce to the Tribunal all the documents that were the subject of his application. He said (AB232): I further believe that Telstra's response is a calculated attempt to thwart my application and can only be considered as conduct in contempt of a lawful direction by the Tribunal.