.png@webp)
NCAT Offers Hints and Tips to Incompetent Sydney Barrister in Privacy Proceedings,
But Makes No Offers of Assistance to Self-Represented Party, 30.01.2026
How many solicitors does it take to pummel a member of the public self-representing in the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal for the purpose of avoiding statutory obligations under Privacy Legislation?
Apparently there are not enough, as today the NCAT provided Appellant Port Stephens Council tips and direction on legal arguments, something not provided to the Respondent Telina Webb of NSW Freedom of Information.
The Orders came today after the Appeal Hearing in the matter of Webb and Port Stephens Council concluded, where the Panel extended an invitation to file further submissions from the parties on a question of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
So yet again, the Tribunal and in this case the Appeal Panel, unsure of the correct statutory interpretation, directs the parties to answer a question of law instead of passing the matter rightfully up the chain of command to the NSW Supreme Court. This is not new, the Tribunal routinely does so, expecting non-legal professionals to be able to meet the legal challenge and put forward credible, logical, meaningful legal arguments no doubt supported by caselaw precedent. Hmmmmm…………….. Webb had brought an Application for Review under the PPIP Act 1998 Section 55 to the Tribunal, further to her dissatisfaction with the outcome of Council’s Internal Review of Agency Conduct. She never really expected Council to do the right thing. Her application to the Tribunal anticipated ahead of time.
That conduct concerned Council uploading her personal information to the Information & Privacy Commission’s (IPC) GIPA TOOL, a digital platform owned by marketing conglomerate Salesforce which the IPC subscribes to at a fee of approximately $45,000.00 per annum. It is a standard customer management system. It includes fields not required for the purpose of GIPA. It facilitates the uploading and storage of personal documents of ID; passports, birth certificates, etc. It is claimed to assist agencies to meet reporting obligations under GIPA, but it’s not mandatory. So agencies can clearly meet those obligations absent of using it.
Kind of makes it completely superfluous and another example of wasting public monies. Port Stephens Council had uploaded Webb’s personal information, without any disclosure notice of its intentions to do so, and it went further by not first seeking her consent to use her personal information for a secondary purpose to the processing of her Access Applications. Additionally, it completely failed to ensure the security of that personal information. Astonishingly Port Stephens Council thereafter abandoned Webb’s personal information when it ceased using the TOOL leaving it in cyberspace, but again failed to advise her, and worse if possible did not delete the information. Some of Webb’s personal information has been on the TOOL for (9) nine years. Webb’s application to the Tribunal was a resounding success, earlier reported here, but Council was having none of that, so it lodged an Appeal. Clearly the idea of undertaking necessary retraining, deleting Webb’s personal information from the TOOL, paying compensation, and providing a due apology were far too much for Council to endure albeit the individual wholly responsible Tony Leslie Wickham Governance Manager eluded any accountability. Basically, Council was fighting against doing the right thing, the legal thing. As is its entrenched pattern of behaviour, it continues to do whatever it chooses whenever it chooses, doing absolutely nothing it should unless dragged kicking and screaming to the NCAT or other court. In particular, the issue of costs was central to Council’s afront. That amount, a meagre $3,000.00, was far better invested in engaging a larger legal team than that at the original hearing………….. So today the Appeal Hearing wrapped up with the (2) two Members reserving their decision and that seemed to be the end of the matter. It was just a case of wait and see.
That is until the Members had second thoughts later in the day and decided Council should be given additional opportunities to make new, fresh submissions; submissions that were not even remotely hinted at or suggested prior.Those new submissions concerning the particular question of jurisdiction was not put to the Tribunal at first instance in the substantive hearing, and neither was it put forward in the Appeal submissions. The originating Tribunal Member did not raise it either.
But today the Appeal Panel provided Council, supported by a legal time of 2 in-house solicitors, 2 external solicitors, 1 paralegal, and 1 barrister, the opportunity to formulate a whole new argument as to why Webb’s application for review of agency conduct should be completely dismissed.
Such actions by any judicial body can easily be interpreted as blatant bias; caselaw is littered with cases on this embarrassing issue which permeates throughout NCAT.
“There wasn’t any need for this appeal. But this agency will not be told, it wants to be allowed to continue breaching the public’s beneficial legislation, making up its own rules, and it will not conduct government business with any degree of ethics or integrity unless it is dragged to accountability. This culture of legislative rebellion has been confirmed entrenched and documented since at least 2011 when I personally witnessed this Council deliberately corrupt the Development Application process. After that revelation I started documenting further acts of corruption which revealed Council’s Corporate Policeman / Governance Manager Tony Leslie Wickham had instigated an unlawful agreement with a member of the public to conceal and protect open access information mandated for release on a fabricated claim of a risk of harm. It’s not a theory, it’s fact backed by Council’s own documentation, signed by the architect himself,” stated Webb.
“The fact the Appeal Panel has actually offered the Appellant Council an opportunity to make a totally new argument is extraordinary. It is a very bad look for the Tribunal which is required to be impartial. Of course there are issues here concerning agencies breaching the public’s privacy; that issue is central to this matter. But the Tribunal’s decision in response to that by awarding costs has opened up a whole new can of worms. This is because there are no costs in PPIP. Council’s arguments in the Appeal confirm that. An email to the Tribunal on 17th November 2025 from Council to the Tribunal concedes “………..that the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 does not provide for costs.” My arguments in the Appeal for this matter agree with that. Of course, this written concession admits Council’s earlier claims for costs in PPIP were not based in law.” “I feel the Appeal Panel doesn’t want to make any decision on the issue of costs in this PPIP matter because it exposes the state to damages. This is a unique situation where both parties agree there are no costs in PPIP. NCAT has been awarding costs in PPIP and other beneficial legislation, for years. It’s now out in the open and it’s fully exposed. NCAT has no jurisdiction to award costs unless it is clearly set out in the enabling legislation. In this case PPIP is the enabling legislation. And NCAT has been caught with its judicial pants around its ankles having snapped its braces!” stated Webb. The incompetent barrister who appears to have missed his glorious moment of legal argument is Matthew Harker of Greenway Chambers. But when freely gifted the means to shine for this Council he has expectantly seized his chance. He was supported by solicitor Nathan Sloan of Lindsay Taylor Lawyers. Sloan was backed up by several other solicitors Megan Hawley, Alana Baker, and Council’s Stephanie Posniak. So many solicitors against one little self-represented Applicant?! But when it’s free-flowing public monies being signed off by the offending individuals themselves, who’s interested in counting the number of gluttonous pigs at the bureaucratic trough?! “I am,” stated Webb. Ironically it was Matthew Harker who alongside his compatriot Carlo Zoppo, both previously of Lindsay Taylor Lawyers, who covered up the corrupt conduct of Council’s Corporate Policeman Tony Leslie Wickham the architect of the unlawful agreement to conceal and protect open access information mandated for release.
There is no indication Matthew Harker complied with his obligations as an officer of the court to report that corruption.
“It’s too late. Harker’s implicated now and it’s on the public record. I certainly have no intention of glossing things over. Unfortunately for Harker, Port Stephens Council owns him,” stated Webb.
"As a closing observation of this case, one of the Appeal Panel Members is the co-author of the publication “NCAT Practice & Procedure”. The commentary concerning the NCAT Act 2013 Section 60 Costs (p90-92) makes clear costs can only be claimed if the enabling legislation makes provision for such. The Member cites the case of Draper v Gibbs (2014) NSWCATAP 54 and the Dividing Fences Act 1991. Paragraph 106 states “Section 23 of the Dividing Fences Act provided that the Tribunal may award costs against either party…….” “The Appeal Panel wants an “out” on this one, with all the costs it has awarded in favour of NSW government agencies without the jurisdiction to do so, it does not want to make a decision in this case; it would open a flood gate of compensation claims against the State,” stated Webb. “At least one of the Appeal Panel Members should have immediately recused herself or declined to preside over the case to avoid any conflict of interest having regard to her published concession on the issue of costs and enabling legislation. I believe the Appeal Panel wants to dismiss my original Application for Review of Conduct for lack of jurisdiction in order to save face on the issue of costs. The claim the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear my originating application is just an excuse when historical PPIP decisions are considered.” “As usual, when the heat is turned up there’s no sign of Tony Wickham, he simply sends his compatriot Lisa Marshall as voyeur to the proceedings; she doesn’t sit at the bar table being incapable of doing any real legal work. Likewise Wickham didn’t attend the first instance hearing no doubt hiding from the summons to appear for cross-examination. He’s negligent and routinely abuses his position as a public officer; he tramples on the public’s beneficial legislation; he’s a coward and a bully; using public monies to avoid accountability. I’ll never change my mind about any of that.” The Tribunal’s first instance decision is here. This case will feature in the NSW Freedom of Information Media Release Forensic Series. Contact: Tony Wickham, tony.wickham@portstephens.nsw.gov.au Lisa Marshall, lisa.marshall@portstephens.nsw.gov.au Stephanie Posniak, stephanie.posniak@portstephens.nsw.gov.au
Nathan Sloan, nathan.sloan@lindsaytaylorlawyers.com.au
Megan Hawley, megan.hawley@lindsaytaylorlawyers.com.au
Alanna Baker, alanna.baker@lindsaytaylorlawyers.com.au
Matthew Harker, matt.harker@greenway.com.au
NCAT Appeal Panel: ap@ncat.nsw.gov.au
The Orders came today after the Appeal Hearing in the matter of Webb and Port Stephens Council concluded, where the Panel extended an invitation to file further submissions from the parties on a question of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
So yet again, the Tribunal and in this case the Appeal Panel, unsure of the correct statutory interpretation, directs the parties to answer a question of law instead of passing the matter rightfully up the chain of command to the NSW Supreme Court. This is not new, the Tribunal routinely does so, expecting non-legal professionals to be able to meet the legal challenge and put forward credible, logical, meaningful legal arguments no doubt supported by caselaw precedent. Hmmmmm…………….. Webb had brought an Application for Review under the PPIP Act 1998 Section 55 to the Tribunal, further to her dissatisfaction with the outcome of Council’s Internal Review of Agency Conduct. She never really expected Council to do the right thing. Her application to the Tribunal anticipated ahead of time.
That conduct concerned Council uploading her personal information to the Information & Privacy Commission’s (IPC) GIPA TOOL, a digital platform owned by marketing conglomerate Salesforce which the IPC subscribes to at a fee of approximately $45,000.00 per annum. It is a standard customer management system. It includes fields not required for the purpose of GIPA. It facilitates the uploading and storage of personal documents of ID; passports, birth certificates, etc. It is claimed to assist agencies to meet reporting obligations under GIPA, but it’s not mandatory. So agencies can clearly meet those obligations absent of using it.
Kind of makes it completely superfluous and another example of wasting public monies. Port Stephens Council had uploaded Webb’s personal information, without any disclosure notice of its intentions to do so, and it went further by not first seeking her consent to use her personal information for a secondary purpose to the processing of her Access Applications. Additionally, it completely failed to ensure the security of that personal information. Astonishingly Port Stephens Council thereafter abandoned Webb’s personal information when it ceased using the TOOL leaving it in cyberspace, but again failed to advise her, and worse if possible did not delete the information. Some of Webb’s personal information has been on the TOOL for (9) nine years. Webb’s application to the Tribunal was a resounding success, earlier reported here, but Council was having none of that, so it lodged an Appeal. Clearly the idea of undertaking necessary retraining, deleting Webb’s personal information from the TOOL, paying compensation, and providing a due apology were far too much for Council to endure albeit the individual wholly responsible Tony Leslie Wickham Governance Manager eluded any accountability. Basically, Council was fighting against doing the right thing, the legal thing. As is its entrenched pattern of behaviour, it continues to do whatever it chooses whenever it chooses, doing absolutely nothing it should unless dragged kicking and screaming to the NCAT or other court. In particular, the issue of costs was central to Council’s afront. That amount, a meagre $3,000.00, was far better invested in engaging a larger legal team than that at the original hearing………….. So today the Appeal Hearing wrapped up with the (2) two Members reserving their decision and that seemed to be the end of the matter. It was just a case of wait and see.
That is until the Members had second thoughts later in the day and decided Council should be given additional opportunities to make new, fresh submissions; submissions that were not even remotely hinted at or suggested prior.Those new submissions concerning the particular question of jurisdiction was not put to the Tribunal at first instance in the substantive hearing, and neither was it put forward in the Appeal submissions. The originating Tribunal Member did not raise it either.
But today the Appeal Panel provided Council, supported by a legal time of 2 in-house solicitors, 2 external solicitors, 1 paralegal, and 1 barrister, the opportunity to formulate a whole new argument as to why Webb’s application for review of agency conduct should be completely dismissed.
Such actions by any judicial body can easily be interpreted as blatant bias; caselaw is littered with cases on this embarrassing issue which permeates throughout NCAT.
“There wasn’t any need for this appeal. But this agency will not be told, it wants to be allowed to continue breaching the public’s beneficial legislation, making up its own rules, and it will not conduct government business with any degree of ethics or integrity unless it is dragged to accountability. This culture of legislative rebellion has been confirmed entrenched and documented since at least 2011 when I personally witnessed this Council deliberately corrupt the Development Application process. After that revelation I started documenting further acts of corruption which revealed Council’s Corporate Policeman / Governance Manager Tony Leslie Wickham had instigated an unlawful agreement with a member of the public to conceal and protect open access information mandated for release on a fabricated claim of a risk of harm. It’s not a theory, it’s fact backed by Council’s own documentation, signed by the architect himself,” stated Webb.
“The fact the Appeal Panel has actually offered the Appellant Council an opportunity to make a totally new argument is extraordinary. It is a very bad look for the Tribunal which is required to be impartial. Of course there are issues here concerning agencies breaching the public’s privacy; that issue is central to this matter. But the Tribunal’s decision in response to that by awarding costs has opened up a whole new can of worms. This is because there are no costs in PPIP. Council’s arguments in the Appeal confirm that. An email to the Tribunal on 17th November 2025 from Council to the Tribunal concedes “………..that the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 does not provide for costs.” My arguments in the Appeal for this matter agree with that. Of course, this written concession admits Council’s earlier claims for costs in PPIP were not based in law.” “I feel the Appeal Panel doesn’t want to make any decision on the issue of costs in this PPIP matter because it exposes the state to damages. This is a unique situation where both parties agree there are no costs in PPIP. NCAT has been awarding costs in PPIP and other beneficial legislation, for years. It’s now out in the open and it’s fully exposed. NCAT has no jurisdiction to award costs unless it is clearly set out in the enabling legislation. In this case PPIP is the enabling legislation. And NCAT has been caught with its judicial pants around its ankles having snapped its braces!” stated Webb. The incompetent barrister who appears to have missed his glorious moment of legal argument is Matthew Harker of Greenway Chambers. But when freely gifted the means to shine for this Council he has expectantly seized his chance. He was supported by solicitor Nathan Sloan of Lindsay Taylor Lawyers. Sloan was backed up by several other solicitors Megan Hawley, Alana Baker, and Council’s Stephanie Posniak. So many solicitors against one little self-represented Applicant?! But when it’s free-flowing public monies being signed off by the offending individuals themselves, who’s interested in counting the number of gluttonous pigs at the bureaucratic trough?! “I am,” stated Webb. Ironically it was Matthew Harker who alongside his compatriot Carlo Zoppo, both previously of Lindsay Taylor Lawyers, who covered up the corrupt conduct of Council’s Corporate Policeman Tony Leslie Wickham the architect of the unlawful agreement to conceal and protect open access information mandated for release.
There is no indication Matthew Harker complied with his obligations as an officer of the court to report that corruption.
“It’s too late. Harker’s implicated now and it’s on the public record. I certainly have no intention of glossing things over. Unfortunately for Harker, Port Stephens Council owns him,” stated Webb.
"As a closing observation of this case, one of the Appeal Panel Members is the co-author of the publication “NCAT Practice & Procedure”. The commentary concerning the NCAT Act 2013 Section 60 Costs (p90-92) makes clear costs can only be claimed if the enabling legislation makes provision for such. The Member cites the case of Draper v Gibbs (2014) NSWCATAP 54 and the Dividing Fences Act 1991. Paragraph 106 states “Section 23 of the Dividing Fences Act provided that the Tribunal may award costs against either party…….” “The Appeal Panel wants an “out” on this one, with all the costs it has awarded in favour of NSW government agencies without the jurisdiction to do so, it does not want to make a decision in this case; it would open a flood gate of compensation claims against the State,” stated Webb. “At least one of the Appeal Panel Members should have immediately recused herself or declined to preside over the case to avoid any conflict of interest having regard to her published concession on the issue of costs and enabling legislation. I believe the Appeal Panel wants to dismiss my original Application for Review of Conduct for lack of jurisdiction in order to save face on the issue of costs. The claim the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear my originating application is just an excuse when historical PPIP decisions are considered.” “As usual, when the heat is turned up there’s no sign of Tony Wickham, he simply sends his compatriot Lisa Marshall as voyeur to the proceedings; she doesn’t sit at the bar table being incapable of doing any real legal work. Likewise Wickham didn’t attend the first instance hearing no doubt hiding from the summons to appear for cross-examination. He’s negligent and routinely abuses his position as a public officer; he tramples on the public’s beneficial legislation; he’s a coward and a bully; using public monies to avoid accountability. I’ll never change my mind about any of that.” The Tribunal’s first instance decision is here. This case will feature in the NSW Freedom of Information Media Release Forensic Series. Contact: Tony Wickham, tony.wickham@portstephens.nsw.gov.au Lisa Marshall, lisa.marshall@portstephens.nsw.gov.au Stephanie Posniak, stephanie.posniak@portstephens.nsw.gov.au
Nathan Sloan, nathan.sloan@lindsaytaylorlawyers.com.au
Megan Hawley, megan.hawley@lindsaytaylorlawyers.com.au
Alanna Baker, alanna.baker@lindsaytaylorlawyers.com.au
Matthew Harker, matt.harker@greenway.com.au
NCAT Appeal Panel: ap@ncat.nsw.gov.au
Contact us using this form to comment on this article.