The NSW public are asking what is it going to take for the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) to cease acting punitively against unrepresented parties seeking review in the Administrative & Equal Opportunity Division of NCAT?
Administrative Review includes the beneficial legislation the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, GIPA, and the Privacy & Personal Information Protection Act 1998, PPIP.
Neither of these Acts are penal; they do not have powers to punish or incarcerate.
Neither of these Acts are fiscal; they do not have any powers concerning taxation.
They are the NSW Parliament’s free gifts of beneficial legislation to the NSW public.
They do not provide any benefit whatsoever to any public servant or NSW government department.
Neither Act provides a mechanism for the claiming of costs. So no matter who you are or what side of the bar table you’re sitting at, there is no risk of costs being awarded against you regardless of your standing in the community or agency being represented. At least that's the legal premise.
The NCAT itself has a published policy titled “Administrative & Equal Opportunity Division Guideline – Costs". It’s dated 2017 and published on the NCAT website here.
It states at Section 5:"The Tribunal can order a person to pay someone else’s costs, even if there are no special circumstances, if a particular law gives the Tribunal a choice or discretion about who pays costs (emphasis added). Those particular laws are:
It states at Section 5:"The Tribunal can order a person to pay someone else’s costs, even if there are no special circumstances, if a particular law gives the Tribunal a choice or discretion about who pays costs (emphasis added). Those particular laws are:
AI imagery
a) section 42(1)(b) of the Payroll Tax Rebate Scheme (Jobs Action Plan) Act 2011b) section 46(1)(b) of the Regional Relocation Grants (Skills Inventive) Act 2011c) section 44(1)(b) of the Small Business Grants (Employment Incentive) Act 2015d) section 29(1)(b) of the First Home Owner Grant (New Homes) Act 2000e) section 52(3) of the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002, but only if the Tribunal dismisses the complaint because it is frivolous, vexatious misconceived or lacking in substance or the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant does not wish to proceed with the complaintf) section 108(2)(a) of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 in particular circumstances relating to delayed decisionsg) the Dormant Funds Act 1942."
Looking at this policy document it’s abundantly clear the Tribunal can only award costs if a particular law gives the Tribunal a choice or discretion about who pays costs.The topic of NCAT costs has been discussed on the website www.nswfreedomofinformation.net. No person has contested that information.
And yet, despite NCAT overflowing with legal practitioners including judges and magistrates, Tribunal Members continue to award costs, make costs orders, and punish the public for trying to access justice. And that’s precisely what it is; the public are trying to access justice in NSW. It has been argued that the NCAT Act 2013 Section 60 makes provision for the awarding of costs. However that is a legally flawed argument as it is, and has always been, the enabling legislation, such as GIPA or PPIP, which prevails.
And yet, despite NCAT overflowing with legal practitioners including judges and magistrates, Tribunal Members continue to award costs, make costs orders, and punish the public for trying to access justice. And that’s precisely what it is; the public are trying to access justice in NSW. It has been argued that the NCAT Act 2013 Section 60 makes provision for the awarding of costs. However that is a legally flawed argument as it is, and has always been, the enabling legislation, such as GIPA or PPIP, which prevails.
Both Acts prevail over the NCAT Act 2013.
NCAT cannot take seniority; its jurisdictional legislation cannot take seniority.
Today, in the latest decision of Wojciechowska v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAP 297, the Appellant sees herself facing costs yet again.
This is not new to this Appellant. She’s been in this position a number of times. And this time the costs are likely to be assessed, by someone allocated by the NSW Supreme Court, adding to the costs amount.
NCAT is well-known for award costs at appeal level, knowing the costs victim would have to appeal to the NSW Supreme Court which is out of the reach of most self-represented parties. An Application to the Court costs close to $8,000.00. That amount is not within the reach of ordinary citizens.
“What is it going to take for these members to stop?! It’s unlawful and they know it,” stated Telina Webb of NSW Freedom of Information and victim of a number of costs orders which were enforced by NSW government agencies. “Initially I paid costs awarded against me because I naively believed the Tribunal Members knew what they were doing. I now know they knew it was wrong, and they knew those awarded at appeal had no chance of being brought to the Supreme Court; they are highly trained and very experienced. They don’t care and why would they when they’re immune from accountability? We are being targeted, lined up in their sights, and hunted. It is designed to wear us down and dissuade us from entering into the NCAT arena under our banner of beneficial legislation. And it is an arena; an arena for blood sports. It’s going to be a wealthy person or someone sitting very high in the legal fraternity who takes such an injustice to the Supreme Court, because we ordinary folk just can’t afford to do it, and they know it.”
Contact: NCAT President Lea Armstrong, lea.armstrong@ncat.nsw.gov.au NSW Crown Solicitor, crownsol@cso.nsw.gov.au
This is not new to this Appellant. She’s been in this position a number of times. And this time the costs are likely to be assessed, by someone allocated by the NSW Supreme Court, adding to the costs amount.
NCAT is well-known for award costs at appeal level, knowing the costs victim would have to appeal to the NSW Supreme Court which is out of the reach of most self-represented parties. An Application to the Court costs close to $8,000.00. That amount is not within the reach of ordinary citizens.
“What is it going to take for these members to stop?! It’s unlawful and they know it,” stated Telina Webb of NSW Freedom of Information and victim of a number of costs orders which were enforced by NSW government agencies. “Initially I paid costs awarded against me because I naively believed the Tribunal Members knew what they were doing. I now know they knew it was wrong, and they knew those awarded at appeal had no chance of being brought to the Supreme Court; they are highly trained and very experienced. They don’t care and why would they when they’re immune from accountability? We are being targeted, lined up in their sights, and hunted. It is designed to wear us down and dissuade us from entering into the NCAT arena under our banner of beneficial legislation. And it is an arena; an arena for blood sports. It’s going to be a wealthy person or someone sitting very high in the legal fraternity who takes such an injustice to the Supreme Court, because we ordinary folk just can’t afford to do it, and they know it.”
Contact: NCAT President Lea Armstrong, lea.armstrong@ncat.nsw.gov.au NSW Crown Solicitor, crownsol@cso.nsw.gov.au
Contact us using this form to comment on this article.