.png@webp)
NSW Supreme Court Says It Knows Nothing about the GIPA and GIIC Acts or NCAT Processes,
And Its Judges Avoid Social or Formal Interactions with NCAT President Judge Lea Armstrong, 24.07.2026
An informal meeting today with a Deputy Registrar of the NSW Supreme Court has provided information which may be beneficial to the NSW public, particularly those seeking to understand various appeal processes associated with NCAT Administrative Law Decisions.
Telina Webb of NSW Freedom of Information sought a meeting to clarify the Supreme Court’s processes for appeal, in particular the proper identifying of parties to proceedings, and the filing fees.
In particular, the Deputy Registrar (DR) indicated she had no knowledge whatsoever of the court’s processes concerning the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, GIPA, the Government Information (Information Commissioner) Act 2009, GIIC, and the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal, NCAT.
Webb also sought confirmation of the correct forms for the initiating of appeal proceedings in the Supreme Court, with the DR stating the only (2) two options in this context were a Summons or a Statement of Claim.
The filing fees in each case are confirmed to be $1,443.00. In circumstances where an Applicant suffered financial hardship, a fee waiver form could be attached to the Application. The (5) five page form required very detailed information inclusive of evidence of government or medical concessions, living expenses such as mortgage or rental payments, motor vehicle expenses, and full disclosure of assets and any family legal obligations such as child support.
Webb also discussed the GIPA Act 2009 with the DR, drawing her attention to review rights for Access to Information Applicants. Currently those Applicants aggrieved by NCAT decisions can seek a review in the Supreme Court. Mostly GIPA reviews are dealt with by NCAT but are open to further review with the Supreme Court.
It’s a pretty straight forward process to this point.
However, if a person is aggrieved by a GIPA decision emanating from the Office of the NSW Information & Privacy Commission (IPC), then a whole new set of parameters comes into play. Specifically, before filing a Request for Administrative Review with NCAT, at this point in time the IPC relies on the GIIC Act 2009 (yes it is a merry-go-round ride in legislative procrastination) as a ‘get out of GIPA review card’, referring to its Section 42. And here’s where it gets interesting. The GIIC Act 2013 Section 42 states:“42 Immunity of Commissioner and others(1) Neither the Commissioner nor a member of staff of the Commissioner is liable, whether on the ground of want of jurisdiction or on any other ground, to any civil or criminal proceedings in respect of any act, matter or thing done or omitted to be done for the purpose of executing this or any other Act unless the act, matter or thing was done, or omitted to be done, in bad faith.(2) Civil or criminal proceedings in respect of any act or omission referred to in subsection (1) cannot be brought against the Commissioner or a member of staff of the Commissioner without the leave of the Supreme Court.(3) The Supreme Court is not to grant leave under subsection (2) unless it is satisfied that there is substantial ground for the contention that the person to be proceeded against has acted, or omitted to act, in bad faith.”
So, the IPC has been claiming that a person seeking an administrative merits review of an IPC GIPA decision in the NCAT, must first seek leave from the NSW Supreme Court. Clearly any person with basic reading and comprehension skills grasps that an administrative merits review of a GIPA decision does not constitute civil or criminal proceedings. Again, a GIPA review constitutes administrative merits review proceedings.
However, recent cases in NCAT on the issue of the GIIC Act 2009 Section 42 have all sided with the IPC's position which is totally contradictory. Unbelievable?! No! Believe it!
Of course this flies in the face of the GIPA Act 2009 itself, at Section 3 Object of the Act, which states the Parliament’s intention was to ensure access to government information at the lowest reasonable price.
This is why an Access Application under the GIPA Act 2009 is only $30.00, but which the IPC processes for zero cost.
Just to reiterate that; the IPC does not impose the statutory fee for an Access Application.
That’s right. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Diddly Squat. And the public is very grateful for that.
The NCAT filing fee for a review of an IPC GIPA decision is currently $127.00.
And now the NCAT and IPC are saying to hell with the GIPA Act 2009 Section 3 making the cost of an access application for government information low and reasonable, you will be slugged $1,443.00 by the NSW Supreme Court to get leave, to get permission to take your IPC GIPA Review to NCAT.
Oh. And let’s not forget good old costs. The public should expect the Office of the NSW Crown Solicitor to represent the IPC in the NSW Supreme Court, and despite neither the GIPA Act 2009 or the GIIC Act 2009, both the pieces of enabling legislation in this overly complicated situation where there is NO mechanism for costs, the public should also expect to be billed for the privilege of seeking leave of the Supreme Court that was never necessary, not legislated, and in contradiction and contravention of the GIPA Act 2009 in the first place.
Go the NSW government! Go the IPC! Go the NCAT!
“I attended the Supreme Court in person to get it straight from the horse’s mouth. It was a shock to realise a Deputy Registrar had absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about GIPA, GIIC, or the NCAT. I asked her directly about affiliations between the judges of both the Supreme Court and NCAT, which was flatly denied. I asked about that because of the evidence of NSW Right to Information & Privacy Officers (including IPC staff) meeting outside of any legislative requirement to do so, breaching the public’s privacy and generally behaving badly at the public’s expense. I naturally expected there would be some kind of shindig between all our judges for similar purposes. Apparently they do not talk to each other; or at least that’s the claim. No wonder nobody knows what’s going on. But it’s left up to the poor old public, most of whom do their best to self-represent, to work out the mess and try to get these extremely well paid judicial officers to understand the legislation they administer AND do it correctly. What a joke!” stated Webb. “Totally embarrassing. But unbelievably NCAT, having sided with the IPC on the topic of proper interpretation of the GIIC Act 2009 Section 42, has made formal determinations stating the Supreme Court process must be followed if a GIPA Application is connected to the IPC; both cases which are bad case law denying the public’s legislated rights of review and the object of the GIPA Act 2009. The judicial system really does need to work much harder to meet the needs of the public it serves.”
A copy of the NSW Supreme Court Summons Form No. 84 is available here. A copy of the IPC Fact Sheet is available here. A copy of the NSW Supreme Court Fee Waiver form is available here. A copy of the current court list of Pro Bono solicitor services is available here.
The bad caselaw decisions are listed on the IPC Fact Sheet.
Contact: NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal, aeod@ncat.nsw.gov.au
NSW Information & Privacy Commission, ipcinfo@ipc.nsw.gov.au
NSW Supreme Court, sc.enquiries@justice.nsw.gov.au
Telina Webb of NSW Freedom of Information sought a meeting to clarify the Supreme Court’s processes for appeal, in particular the proper identifying of parties to proceedings, and the filing fees.
In particular, the Deputy Registrar (DR) indicated she had no knowledge whatsoever of the court’s processes concerning the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, GIPA, the Government Information (Information Commissioner) Act 2009, GIIC, and the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal, NCAT.
Webb also sought confirmation of the correct forms for the initiating of appeal proceedings in the Supreme Court, with the DR stating the only (2) two options in this context were a Summons or a Statement of Claim.
The filing fees in each case are confirmed to be $1,443.00. In circumstances where an Applicant suffered financial hardship, a fee waiver form could be attached to the Application. The (5) five page form required very detailed information inclusive of evidence of government or medical concessions, living expenses such as mortgage or rental payments, motor vehicle expenses, and full disclosure of assets and any family legal obligations such as child support.
Webb also discussed the GIPA Act 2009 with the DR, drawing her attention to review rights for Access to Information Applicants. Currently those Applicants aggrieved by NCAT decisions can seek a review in the Supreme Court. Mostly GIPA reviews are dealt with by NCAT but are open to further review with the Supreme Court.
It’s a pretty straight forward process to this point.
However, if a person is aggrieved by a GIPA decision emanating from the Office of the NSW Information & Privacy Commission (IPC), then a whole new set of parameters comes into play. Specifically, before filing a Request for Administrative Review with NCAT, at this point in time the IPC relies on the GIIC Act 2009 (yes it is a merry-go-round ride in legislative procrastination) as a ‘get out of GIPA review card’, referring to its Section 42. And here’s where it gets interesting. The GIIC Act 2013 Section 42 states:“42 Immunity of Commissioner and others(1) Neither the Commissioner nor a member of staff of the Commissioner is liable, whether on the ground of want of jurisdiction or on any other ground, to any civil or criminal proceedings in respect of any act, matter or thing done or omitted to be done for the purpose of executing this or any other Act unless the act, matter or thing was done, or omitted to be done, in bad faith.(2) Civil or criminal proceedings in respect of any act or omission referred to in subsection (1) cannot be brought against the Commissioner or a member of staff of the Commissioner without the leave of the Supreme Court.(3) The Supreme Court is not to grant leave under subsection (2) unless it is satisfied that there is substantial ground for the contention that the person to be proceeded against has acted, or omitted to act, in bad faith.”
So, the IPC has been claiming that a person seeking an administrative merits review of an IPC GIPA decision in the NCAT, must first seek leave from the NSW Supreme Court. Clearly any person with basic reading and comprehension skills grasps that an administrative merits review of a GIPA decision does not constitute civil or criminal proceedings. Again, a GIPA review constitutes administrative merits review proceedings.
However, recent cases in NCAT on the issue of the GIIC Act 2009 Section 42 have all sided with the IPC's position which is totally contradictory. Unbelievable?! No! Believe it!
Of course this flies in the face of the GIPA Act 2009 itself, at Section 3 Object of the Act, which states the Parliament’s intention was to ensure access to government information at the lowest reasonable price.
This is why an Access Application under the GIPA Act 2009 is only $30.00, but which the IPC processes for zero cost.
Just to reiterate that; the IPC does not impose the statutory fee for an Access Application.
That’s right. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Diddly Squat. And the public is very grateful for that.
The NCAT filing fee for a review of an IPC GIPA decision is currently $127.00.
And now the NCAT and IPC are saying to hell with the GIPA Act 2009 Section 3 making the cost of an access application for government information low and reasonable, you will be slugged $1,443.00 by the NSW Supreme Court to get leave, to get permission to take your IPC GIPA Review to NCAT.
Oh. And let’s not forget good old costs. The public should expect the Office of the NSW Crown Solicitor to represent the IPC in the NSW Supreme Court, and despite neither the GIPA Act 2009 or the GIIC Act 2009, both the pieces of enabling legislation in this overly complicated situation where there is NO mechanism for costs, the public should also expect to be billed for the privilege of seeking leave of the Supreme Court that was never necessary, not legislated, and in contradiction and contravention of the GIPA Act 2009 in the first place.
Go the NSW government! Go the IPC! Go the NCAT!
“I attended the Supreme Court in person to get it straight from the horse’s mouth. It was a shock to realise a Deputy Registrar had absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about GIPA, GIIC, or the NCAT. I asked her directly about affiliations between the judges of both the Supreme Court and NCAT, which was flatly denied. I asked about that because of the evidence of NSW Right to Information & Privacy Officers (including IPC staff) meeting outside of any legislative requirement to do so, breaching the public’s privacy and generally behaving badly at the public’s expense. I naturally expected there would be some kind of shindig between all our judges for similar purposes. Apparently they do not talk to each other; or at least that’s the claim. No wonder nobody knows what’s going on. But it’s left up to the poor old public, most of whom do their best to self-represent, to work out the mess and try to get these extremely well paid judicial officers to understand the legislation they administer AND do it correctly. What a joke!” stated Webb. “Totally embarrassing. But unbelievably NCAT, having sided with the IPC on the topic of proper interpretation of the GIIC Act 2009 Section 42, has made formal determinations stating the Supreme Court process must be followed if a GIPA Application is connected to the IPC; both cases which are bad case law denying the public’s legislated rights of review and the object of the GIPA Act 2009. The judicial system really does need to work much harder to meet the needs of the public it serves.”
A copy of the NSW Supreme Court Summons Form No. 84 is available here. A copy of the IPC Fact Sheet is available here. A copy of the NSW Supreme Court Fee Waiver form is available here. A copy of the current court list of Pro Bono solicitor services is available here.
The bad caselaw decisions are listed on the IPC Fact Sheet.
Contact: NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal, aeod@ncat.nsw.gov.au
NSW Information & Privacy Commission, ipcinfo@ipc.nsw.gov.au
NSW Supreme Court, sc.enquiries@justice.nsw.gov.au
Contact us using this form to comment on this article.