AF v RTA [2009] NSWADT 274

CITATION: AF v RTA [2009] NSWADT 274

DIVISION: General Division

APPLICANT AF PARTIES: RESPONDENT Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW

FILE NUMBER: 073135, 073275

HEARING DATES: 15.04.08, 12.06.08, 15.07.08, 16.07.08, 17.07.08, 09.09.08, 07.11.08, 10.11.08, 26.02.09, 27.02.09, 15.04.09 and 16.04.09.

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 16 April 2009

DATE OF DECISION: 29 October 2009

BEFORE: Wilson R - Judicial Member

CATCHWORDS: Summary dismissal of application. Jurisdictional issues. Preliminary determination of substantive issues. Incapacity of an applicant.

LEGISLATION CITED : Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998

CASES CITED: Y v Director General, Department of Education & Training [2001] NSWADT 149 AW v Vice Chancellor, University of Newcastle [2008] NSWADT 86

APPLICANT In person REPRESENTATION: RESPONDENT M A Robinson, of Counsel

1.The respondent's application that a person be appointed to represent the applicant in the proceedings is dismissed ORDERS: 2. The respondent's interlocutory applications for preliminary dismissal, summary dismissal and dismissal without substantive determination are dismissed without making findings adverse to either party 3. The proceedings are listed for directions on 03 November 2009 at 11:00 am.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1 The applicant commenced these two proceedings in the Tribunal pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (the privacy legislation) alleging a series of acts done by the respondent in breach thereof. Neither matter has yet reached a substantive hearing. Presently before the Tribunal for determination is an application by the respondent for an early dismissal of certain parts of each proceeding, the application being made on several distinct grounds. The applicant has responded to this by bringing her own interlocutory application, namely that the interlocutory application brought by the respondent itself be summarily dismissed. In essence, the applicant's interlocutory application may be taken as an argument that the respondent's interlocutory application should not succeed on any of the grounds argued.