EMF v Cessnock City Council [2021] NSWCATAP 234

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: EMF v Cessnock City Council [2021] NSWCATAP 234 Hearing dates: 30 July 2021 Date of orders: 09 August 2021 Decision date: 09 August 2021 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: R C Titterton OAM, Senior Member Dr J Lucy, Senior Member Decision: (1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) Any party who wishes to apply for costs may file any submissions as to costs within 14 days. (3) The respondent to any costs application is to file any submissions in response within a further 14 days. (4) The costs applicant may reply within a further 7 days. Catchwords: APPEAL – failure to determine jurisdiction – whether the Tribunal erred by taking into account irrelevant considerations or failing to take into account relevant considerations – apprehended bias ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Privacy — Personal information Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) – ss 4, 36, 43, 71, 80 Civil and Administrative Rules 2014 (NSW) – 22, 26 Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) – s 33 Justice of the Peace Act 2002 (NSW) - s 11(4) Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) – s 55 Cases Cited: Assistant Commissioner Michael James Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 7; (2013) 295 ALR 638 Beale v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430 BKM v Sydney Local Health District [2015] NSWCATAD 87 Concrete Pty Limited v Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd [2006] HCA 55; 229 CLR 577 Downey v Acting District Court Judge Boulton (No 5) [2010] NSWCA 240; 272 ALR 705 Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337 EMF v Cessnock City Council [2021] NSWCATAD 83 Gussoni v Burnheim [2018] NSWCATAP 75 Isbester v Knox City Council [2015] HCA 20; (2015) 255 CLR 135 Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48; (2000) 201 CLR 488 Kirby v Dental Council of New South Wales [2017] NSWCATOD 64: Liang v University of Technology, Sydney [2018] NSWCATAP 285 Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725 Prendergast v Western Murray Irrigation Ltd [2014] NSWCATAP 69 Soulmezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 80 Tepko Pty Ltd v Water Board (2001) 206 CLR 1 at [170]. Upton v Martin and Stein Antiques Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAP 175 VEAL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCA 72; (2005) 225 CLR 88 Wootten v Godfrey [2019] NSWCATAP 255 Texts Cited: The Hon J D Heydon, Reasons for Ruling on Disqualification Applications, Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption Category: Principal judgment Parties: EMF (Appellant) Cessnock City Council (Respondent) Representation: Appellant (Self Represented) R Maginnity (Public Officer) (Respondent) File Number(s): 2021/00116611 Publication restriction: An order was made pursuant to s 64(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) prohibiting the disclosure of the appellant's name or of material that identifies the appellant or is likely to lead to the appellant's identification. Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Citation: [2021] NSWCATAD 83 Date of Decision: 31 March 2021 Before: A Starke, Senior Member File Number(s): 2020/00276345