Zonnevylle v Department of Justice [2018] NSWCATAD 96

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Zonnevylle v Department of Justice [2018] NSWCATAD 96 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 03 May 2018 Decision date: 03 May 2018 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: R C Titterton, Principal Member Decision: 1. The application to issue summonses to each of the "Information Access officer, NCAT", Ms Katherine Forbes, Ms Rebecca Jeyasingham, and the "Information Access officer, Crown Solicitors Office" is refused. Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCUDURE – where Registrar refused application to issue three summonses Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) Cases Cited: Sharpe v Grobbel [2017] NSWSC 1065 Becwell Legal Services Pty Ltd v McMaster [2011] FCA 1501 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: P Zonnevylle (Applicant) Department of Justice (Respondent) Representation: Applicant (Self-represented) File Number(s): 2017/000319363

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction 1. The applicant has requested that the Tribunal issue four summonses in this matter. Each summons requires employees of the Tribunal or other NSW Government agencies including the respondent to produce documents and to attend the hearing on 14 May 2018 to give evidence. 2. On 13 April 2018, the Registrar decided not to issue the summonses. In accordance with Tribunal Procedural Directions 2 (Summonses), she has referred the application to me to determine. In an email to the applicant dated 13 April 2018, the Registrar stated: I refer to your application that the Tribunal issue summons to be issued to each of the following: • The "Information Access officer, NCAT"; • Katherine Forbes, "Dept. of Justice IA officer"; • Rebecca Jeyasingham, Dept. of Justice IA officer"; and • "Information Access officer, Crown Solicitors Office". Each summons requires the recipient to produce documents to the Tribunal and to appear and give evidence at the hearing on 14 May 2018. For the following reasons, I have decided not to issue any of the summonses as sought. The issue in dispute between the parties is whether or not the respondent correctly decided to refuse to deal with the your access application in accordance with s 58(1)(e) of the GIPA Act because you failed to pay an advance deposit payable in connection with your application. The evidence to be given by the witnesses and the documents they are asked to produce has no apparent relevance to that issue. The "Information Access officer, NCAT" and "Information Access officer, Crown Solicitors Office" are not identifiable persons to whom a summons could be directed. In any event, evidence of a Civil and Administrative Tribunal member could have no relevance to the issue in dispute. I note that the Tribunal's Procedural Direction 2 – Summonses provides that if a registrar decides not to issue the summons, the party applying for the summons can ask to have a Tribunal Member decide whether or not the summons should be issued: see par [11] http://www.ncat.nsw.gov.au/Documents/ncat_pd2_summonses.pdf). 1. The applicant has now asked that his request to issue summonses be referred to a member for consideration. For the following reasons, I too have decided to refuse the application.