Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Ford v Child Support Registrar [2009] FCA 328
JOHN PATRICK FORD v CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR
VID 412 of 2007
RYAN J
9 APRIL 2009
MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 412 of 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN: JOHN PATRICK FORD
Applicant
AND: CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR
Respondent
JUDGE: RYAN J
DATE OF ORDER: 9 APRIL 2009
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application by way of appeal be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs, to be taxed in default of agreement. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court's website. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 412 of 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN: JOHN PATRICK FORD
Applicant
AND: CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR
Respondent
JUDGE: RYAN J
DATE: 9 APRIL 2009
PLACE: MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 23 April 2007, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal") handed down a decision which, effectively, denied the applicant access to various documents, and stopped him from making, without the Tribunal's leave, further claims to those documents; John Patrick Ford and Child Support Registrar [2007] AATA 1242. The question now before the Court is whether, on a proper construction of the relevant provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) ("the FOI Act") and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ("AAT Act"), the Tribunal was correct in denying the applicant access to those documents. 2 An appeal lies from the AAT to this Court under s 44 of the AAT Act, on questions of law only: see Hussain v Minister for Foreign Affairs (2008) 169 FCR 241 at 254 per Weinberg, Bennett and Edmonds JJ, and the authorities cited by their Honours. That being the nature of the appeal, there are three questions currently before the Court: · Whether the Tribunal stated and applied the law correctly in affirming a decision to uphold an exemption under s 37(1)(c) of the FOI Act; · Whether the Tribunal stated and applied the law correctly in affirming a decision to uphold an exemption under, in the alternative, s 41(1) of the FOI Act; and · Whether the Tribunal stated and applied the law correctly in making a direction under s 42B of the AAT Act. Before analysing each of those provisions, it is convenient to set out a little of the background to this matter.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate