Ali Samandi v Ombudsman NSW [2020] NSWCATAD 184

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Ali Samandi v Ombudsman NSW [2020] NSWCATAD 184 Hearing dates: 6 July 2020 Date of orders: 20 July 2020 Decision date: 20 July 2020 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: Naida Isenberg, Senior Member Decision: Application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – jurisdiction – dismissal Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Ombudsman Act 1974 Cases Cited: Azshion v Ombudsman NSW [2016] NSWCATAD 249 Herbert v Workers Compensation Commission [2016] NSWCATAD 28 Texts Cited: None cited Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Ali Samandi (Applicant) Ombudsman (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Applicant (Self Represented) Legal Counsel, Corporate, Ombudsman NSW (Respondent) File Number(s): 2020/00021624 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background 1. The Applicant, Ali Samandi lodged two complaints with the Ombudsman about his treatment while incarcerated, especially during his time at Macquarie Correctional Centre. 2. The Ombudsman, however, in decisions of 27 October 2019 and 25 November 2019, after preliminary investigation, decided to take no further action in response to Mr Samandi's complaints. 3. By application for review dated 16 January 2020 Mr Samandi asked the Tribunal to review the Ombudsman's decision, and annexed several pieces of correspondence with various government agencies, including the two decisions of the Ombudsman. I attempted to clarify which decision Mr Samandi sought to have reviewed, and Mr Samandi said that his concern related to his treatment while at Macquarie Correctional Centre. This did not assist because both complaints and the decisions included references to Macquarie Correctional Centre. The submissions of the Respondent were to the effect, that because the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to deal with decisions of the Ombudsman, it is immaterial which of the decisions is sought to be reviewed. I took the view that Mr Samandi's application for review related to both decisions. 4. The Ombudsman applied to have Mr Samandi's application for review dismissed under s 55(1)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (CAT Act) on the basis that the application is misconceived and/or lacking in substance.