Miriani v NSW Police Force [2012] NSWADT 78

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Miriani v NSW Police Force [2012] NSWADT 78 Hearing dates: 20 March 2012 Decision date: 20 March 2012 Jurisdiction: General Division Before: S Montgomery, Judicial Member Decision: Pursuant to section 73(5)(g)(iv) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 the matter is dismissed for want of prosecution Catchwords: Dismissal for want of prosecution Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 Cases Cited: Stollznow v Calvert [1980] 2 NSWLR 749 Weston v Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd [2011] NSWSC 433 Witten v Lombard Australia (1968) 88 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 405 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Joe Miriani (Applicant) NSW Police Force (Respondent) Representation: J Miriani (Applicant in person) J McDonnell (Respondent) N Case (Information Commissioner), File Number(s): 113030

REasons for decision 1GENERAL DIVISION (S MONTGOMERY, (JUDICIAL MEMBER)): On 20 March 2012 I dismissed the application commenced by Mr Miriani ("the Applicant"). The application was dismissed pursuant to section 73(5)(g)(iv) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 ("the ADT Act") for want of prosecution. On that occasion I gave brief reasons for the decision. The Applicant has sought written reasons for the decision and these reasons are provided in response to that request.

Background 2The chronology of events leading up to the dismissal of the application is relevant. It indicates the lack of progress in the prosecution of the matter. I will set it out in some detail. 3In March 2010 the Applicant applied to the Information Access Unit of the NSW Police Force ("the Respondent") to access information under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 ("the GIPA Act"). The Respondent determined the application in July 2010. 4In September 2010 the Applicant exercised his right to have the decision reviewed by the Information Commissioner ("the OIC") pursuant to section 89 of the GIPA Act. The OIC made recommendations in January 2011 and in February 2011 the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of decision pursuant to section 100 of the GIPA Act. 5The matter came before me for a Planning Meeting on 29 March 2011. On that occasion I made directions for the progress of the matter. The timetable required the Respondent to file and serve material by 10 May 2011; for the OIC to file and serve material by 25 May 2011; and for the Applicant to file and serve material by 21 June 2011. 6By letter dated 20 May 2011 the Respondent requested further time to comply with the timetable. Its requested was copied to the Applicant. 7On 24 May 2011 the timetable was extended by 4 weeks at. The new timetable required the Respondent to file and serve material by 6 June 2011; for the OIC to file and serve material by 20 June 2011; and for the Applicant to file and serve material by 18 July 2011. 8On 31 May 2011 the Tribunal received a letter dated 26 May 2011 from the Applicant objecting to the extension. The new timetable was not varied in light of that letter. 9On 22 June 2011 the Respondent filed and served material, including the original application, the original decision made by the agency and the Final View on Review by the OIC. 10The matter was listed for a Planning Meeting on 9 August 2011. There was no appearance by the Applicant on that occasion and the matter was stood over to 23 August 2011. The Respondent was directed to file and serve its submissions and evidence by12 August 2011. 11The Respondent complied with that timetable and filed and served its submissions, a revised statement of reasons and a number of statements on 12 August 2011. Accordingly, the Applicant has had all of the Respondent's material since that date. 12The matter was listed for a Planning Meeting on 6 September 2011. The OIC was directed to file and serve its submissions by 4 October 2011 and for the Applicant to file and serve his material by 22 November 2011. 13The matter was Matter listed for a further Planning Meeting on 29 November with a view to the matter being determined on the papers. 14On 27 October 2011 the OIC requested an extension of the timetable to allow its material to be filed and served by 8 November 2011. A new timetable was set at the 29 November 2011 Planning Meeting. Under the new timetable the Applicant was to file and serve his material by 17 January 2012. The OIC was directed to file and serve its submissions by 31 January 2012 and leave was given to the Respondent to file and serve any material in reply by 10 February 2012. The matter was listed for another Planning Meeting on 14 February 2012. 15The Applicant did not file or serve his material by 17 January 2012. At the 14 February 2012 Planning Meeting the time for filing of his material was extended to 17 February 2012. The remainder of the timetable was extended accordingly. 16The Applicant did not file or serve his material in accordance with the extended timetable. 17By letter dated 23 February 2012 the Respondent advised the Applicant that unless his material was filed and served by close of business on Monday 26 February 2012, the Respondent would make an application to the Tribunal for the matter to be struck out for want of prosecution. 18The Applicant did not respond to the Respondent's 23 February 2012 letter and did not file any material. By letter dated 6 March 2012 the Respondent applied to the Tribunal for the matter to be struck out for want of prosecution. 19In response to that correspondence I ruled that in light of the Applicant's failure to comply with the timetables, no further material would be accepted from the Applicant. The matter was listed for further directions on 20 March 2012. With a view to having the matter determined on the papers I directed that the OIC was to file and serve its submissions by 14 March 2012 and leave was given to the Respondent to file and serve any material in reply by 19 March 2012. These directions were communicated from the Tribunal to the Applicant by letter dated 8 March 2012. 20No response or any other communication was received from the Applicant. The OIC served its submissions on 19 March 2012. 21On 20 March 2012 Mr McDonnell pressed his application for the matter to be dismissed. 22The Applicant opposed the Respondent's application. He produced a letter dated 21 February 2012 that he claimed had been sent to the Tribunal requesting an extension of the time to file his material. The Applicant maintained that he took not further action because he was waiting for a response to that letter. There is no record of that letter ever being received by the Tribunal. Nor is there any record of any further communication from the Applicant