NSW Dept of Customer Service Confirms NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal Lacks Jurisdictional Powers to Consider and
Award Costs Claims in Context of both GIPA and PPIP Acts, 17.01.2025
Documents released today to NSW Freedom of Information confirm the statutory interpretation of both the GIPA and PPIP Acts by criminologist Telina Webb asserting the Tribunal has no jurisdictional powers to consider and award costs, is correct.
Ms Webb and her husband Paul McEwan have been victims of what she now labels Costs Wishes by agencies in the context of GIPA and PPIP. Those Costs Wishes saw Port Stephens Council successful in seeking orders from the Tribunal totalling in excess of $50,000.00 after formal Costs Assessments and lump sum awards were granted.
Ms Webb submitted her concerns about NCAT Costs Wishes to the NSW Parliament in August 2024, requesting an urgent parliamentary inquiry, setting out the proper interpretation of the legislation specifically GIPA and PPIP.
She also referred to the NCAT’s Guideline on Costs Policy, which concedes the Tribunal cannot award costs unless a particular law stated so, meaning NCAT could not award any costs against any party unless the enabling legislation being the legislation enlivening the matter, stated so. In this instance, neither GIPA or PPIP stated costs could be awarded, meaning no legal costs. In each instance GIPA or PPIP are the enabling legislation. Since the filing of her report to Parliament, a media release from the NSW Dept of Customer Service was published. That article made clear the Department had been repeatedly advised by the Office of the NSW Crown Solicitor, that unless the particular legislation stated costs could be imposed, then it was not permissible despite there being some desire to do so. This advice has left Customer Service with the arduous task of refunding hundreds of thousands of dollars to the NSW public, funds charged outside of the Department’s mandate. As a result of that article, 23rd October 2024, Ms Webb lodged an Access Application with Customer Service for a copy of the advice on this issue. Her experience with GIPA led her to expect no documentation would be forthcoming, with a claim of legal professional privilege; however she was hopeful the Department would make a favourable decision given the details of the media article were now public knowledge. Today, Ms Webb received the Department’s Notice of Decision concerning her Access Application under the GIPA Act 2009, with the provision of the legal advice originating from the Crown Solicitor’s Office. In Ms Webb’s view, the advice is damning to every NSW government agency in the context of imposing non-legislated fees and charges, for the claiming of costs in the NCAT arena, and worse for the NCAT which has been repeatedly acting outside of its jurisdiction to consider such punitive applications. This is moreso given both the GIPA and PPIP Acts are documented through NCAT caselaw as the public’s beneficial legislation; neither Act is penal or fiscal. They exist purely for the public’s benefit and most definitely not for the public’s detriment or punishment. But that is how NSW government agencies have been using and abusing them. What is also very important here is, the letters from the Crown Solicitor to Service NSW concerning the proper interpretation of the legislation on the subject of financial penalties or infringements, was authored by one Lea Armstrong at the time a solicitor with the Office of the NSW Crown Solicitor. Lea Armstrong is now the President of NCAT and a Supreme Court Judge. This is a very bad look for Ms Armstrong who has been directly petitioned by Ms Webb for commentary on her parliamentary report. A representative for Ms Armstrong replied on her behalf, comment which was not encouraging. And there it is. NCAT does not have the jurisdiction to award Costs Wishes to any NSW government agency in the context of the GIPA or PPIP Acts. So where does this leave those agencies pursuing innocent members of the public through the courts and Mercantile Debt Collection Agencies for outstanding costs amounts courtesy of a faulty judicial forum? “At first I trusted and believed NCAT had capably interpreted the legislation, and that if it did indeed award costs against my husband and I that it must be legitimate and lawful. NCAT is overflowing with legal beagles, and if it is unsure of any statutory interpretation that is a question of law for the NSW Supreme Court; it says so in the NCAT Act 2013,” stated Ms Webb. “And yet here we are with a layperson identifying a huge gaping hole in interpretation, bringing it to the NCAT President and she won’t even comment. This is nothing other than total negligence and the determining Tribunal Members as well as the Applicant Agencies should be totally ashamed. But the goal isn’t integrity of the law, it’s punishment! My husband and I didn’t appeal those Costs Wishes because it meant taking our cases to the NSW Supreme Court, which was not financially viable for us. The agency in our case knew that. These repeated unlawful actions against my husband and I qualify 100% as pure corruption! Whilst I always expect Port Stephens Council to continue its corrupt conduct as it has in the past, I am shocked to realise the breadth of the corruption on this issue.” Successful Costs Wish Applicants include: * Port Stephens Council * NSW Department of Communities & Justice * Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force * NSW Department of Education * Minister for Education & Early Childhood Learning This Site will further report on this issue during the coming months. Ms Webb’s report to Parliament is available here.Service NSW’s media article is available here.Service NSW’s GIPA Notice of Decision is available here.The Crown Solicitor’s legal advice is available here and here.NCAT’s commentary on Ms Webb’s Parliamentary Report is available here.The NCAT’s Costs Guideline Policy is available here. Contact:NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal, 1300 006 228 or ncatenquiries@ncat.nsw.gov.au
NSW Attorney-General Michael Daley, (02) 7225 6070 or office@daley.minister.nsw.gov.au Commentary on this article is invited via the form below.
Ms Webb and her husband Paul McEwan have been victims of what she now labels Costs Wishes by agencies in the context of GIPA and PPIP. Those Costs Wishes saw Port Stephens Council successful in seeking orders from the Tribunal totalling in excess of $50,000.00 after formal Costs Assessments and lump sum awards were granted.
Ms Webb submitted her concerns about NCAT Costs Wishes to the NSW Parliament in August 2024, requesting an urgent parliamentary inquiry, setting out the proper interpretation of the legislation specifically GIPA and PPIP.
She also referred to the NCAT’s Guideline on Costs Policy, which concedes the Tribunal cannot award costs unless a particular law stated so, meaning NCAT could not award any costs against any party unless the enabling legislation being the legislation enlivening the matter, stated so. In this instance, neither GIPA or PPIP stated costs could be awarded, meaning no legal costs. In each instance GIPA or PPIP are the enabling legislation. Since the filing of her report to Parliament, a media release from the NSW Dept of Customer Service was published. That article made clear the Department had been repeatedly advised by the Office of the NSW Crown Solicitor, that unless the particular legislation stated costs could be imposed, then it was not permissible despite there being some desire to do so. This advice has left Customer Service with the arduous task of refunding hundreds of thousands of dollars to the NSW public, funds charged outside of the Department’s mandate. As a result of that article, 23rd October 2024, Ms Webb lodged an Access Application with Customer Service for a copy of the advice on this issue. Her experience with GIPA led her to expect no documentation would be forthcoming, with a claim of legal professional privilege; however she was hopeful the Department would make a favourable decision given the details of the media article were now public knowledge. Today, Ms Webb received the Department’s Notice of Decision concerning her Access Application under the GIPA Act 2009, with the provision of the legal advice originating from the Crown Solicitor’s Office. In Ms Webb’s view, the advice is damning to every NSW government agency in the context of imposing non-legislated fees and charges, for the claiming of costs in the NCAT arena, and worse for the NCAT which has been repeatedly acting outside of its jurisdiction to consider such punitive applications. This is moreso given both the GIPA and PPIP Acts are documented through NCAT caselaw as the public’s beneficial legislation; neither Act is penal or fiscal. They exist purely for the public’s benefit and most definitely not for the public’s detriment or punishment. But that is how NSW government agencies have been using and abusing them. What is also very important here is, the letters from the Crown Solicitor to Service NSW concerning the proper interpretation of the legislation on the subject of financial penalties or infringements, was authored by one Lea Armstrong at the time a solicitor with the Office of the NSW Crown Solicitor. Lea Armstrong is now the President of NCAT and a Supreme Court Judge. This is a very bad look for Ms Armstrong who has been directly petitioned by Ms Webb for commentary on her parliamentary report. A representative for Ms Armstrong replied on her behalf, comment which was not encouraging. And there it is. NCAT does not have the jurisdiction to award Costs Wishes to any NSW government agency in the context of the GIPA or PPIP Acts. So where does this leave those agencies pursuing innocent members of the public through the courts and Mercantile Debt Collection Agencies for outstanding costs amounts courtesy of a faulty judicial forum? “At first I trusted and believed NCAT had capably interpreted the legislation, and that if it did indeed award costs against my husband and I that it must be legitimate and lawful. NCAT is overflowing with legal beagles, and if it is unsure of any statutory interpretation that is a question of law for the NSW Supreme Court; it says so in the NCAT Act 2013,” stated Ms Webb. “And yet here we are with a layperson identifying a huge gaping hole in interpretation, bringing it to the NCAT President and she won’t even comment. This is nothing other than total negligence and the determining Tribunal Members as well as the Applicant Agencies should be totally ashamed. But the goal isn’t integrity of the law, it’s punishment! My husband and I didn’t appeal those Costs Wishes because it meant taking our cases to the NSW Supreme Court, which was not financially viable for us. The agency in our case knew that. These repeated unlawful actions against my husband and I qualify 100% as pure corruption! Whilst I always expect Port Stephens Council to continue its corrupt conduct as it has in the past, I am shocked to realise the breadth of the corruption on this issue.” Successful Costs Wish Applicants include: * Port Stephens Council * NSW Department of Communities & Justice * Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force * NSW Department of Education * Minister for Education & Early Childhood Learning This Site will further report on this issue during the coming months. Ms Webb’s report to Parliament is available here.Service NSW’s media article is available here.Service NSW’s GIPA Notice of Decision is available here.The Crown Solicitor’s legal advice is available here and here.NCAT’s commentary on Ms Webb’s Parliamentary Report is available here.The NCAT’s Costs Guideline Policy is available here. Contact:NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal, 1300 006 228 or ncatenquiries@ncat.nsw.gov.au
NSW Attorney-General Michael Daley, (02) 7225 6070 or office@daley.minister.nsw.gov.au Commentary on this article is invited via the form below.