Free Public Service Issues Community Alert and Call to Speak Out About NCAT’s Continued Unlawful Awarding
of Legal Costs in GIPA and PPIP Act Cases, 31.10.2025
Further to continued unlawful awarding of legal costs against GIPA and PPIP Applicants in the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), NSW Freedom of Information (NSW FOI) has issued a community alert and call to speak out about these damaging punitive decisions which are not based in law.
Today's published NCAT decision of FZK v Secretary, Department of Communities & Justice (2025) NSWCATAP 278, which closely follows that in September of Ward v Secretary, Department of Communities & Justice (2025) NSWCATAD 232, gives additional damning testimony to NCAT ignoring the parameters of legislation, and continuing to act without jurisdiction.
NCAT is on the record for over a decade since its inception in 2013 repeatedly awarding costs against mostly unrepresented Applicants in NCAT proceedings, when neither the GIPA nor PPIP Acts provides any mechanism for the awarding of costs.
Thus far NCAT Members and NSW government agencies have been fully dependent upon the NCAT Act 2013 Section 60 to claim and award costs. However, such costs cannot be awarded or claimed on a lawful basis without the enabling legislation providing statutory provision to do so.
This is not news to vindictive agency personnel and their highly remunerated legal representatives; individuals well-versed in the fundamentals of how legislation operates and what enabling legislation means. Both GIPA and PPIP are enabling legislation; they facilitate the application.
In some cases though, NCAT members don’t wait for an unlawful Costs Application from a punitive, vendetta-driven agency, they simply extend the invitation to agencies to basically ‘come and get it’.
They know in most cases an appeal must be lodged in the NSW Supreme Court and as such they also know those self-representing in NCAT have no capacity to make any case with the higher court.
NCAT itself has published a document titled “NCAT Guideline – Costs” which makes clear at Point 5 it can only make a costs order, or what NSW FOI now refers to as granting a Costs Wish, QUOTE “……IF A PARTICULAR LAW GIVES THE TRIBUNAL A CHOICE OR DISCRETION ABOUT WHO PAYS COSTS” UNQUOTE.
Clearly neither GIPA nor PPIP gives any such discretion.
In August 2024 NSW FOI provided a copy of a Request for Urgent Parliamentary Inquiry into the NCAT and NCAT Act 2013 to the President of NCAT Lea Armstrong (published on this Site). NSW FOI sought an appointment with the President to discuss numerous issues of public concern relating to NCAT but most particularly to address the issues of the ongoing unlawful awarding of costs in both GIPA and PPIP.
Her Honour Judge Lea Armstrong refused to meet.
Judge Armstrong is no stranger to the issue of unlawful claiming of funds in contravention to NSW legislation, as she is evidenced to give legal advice in her former life with the Office of the NSW Crown Solicitor in February and October 2016 to Service NSW, an agency imposing non-legislated fees upon the public in the form of EFTPOS charges. Judge Armstrong is on the record stating unless such impositions arise from the legislation, they are not supported by law.
Not withstanding that earlier legal advice, Ms Armstrong has been a Judge since 2018 and is fully expected to properly educate those under her charge, being Tribunal Members of NCAT, about all things NCAT including accurate statutory interpretation. In fact, the current NCAT Tribunal Member Terms and Conditions (7.3) requires regular professional development so there's no excuse whatsoever for any degree of innocence or ignorance, particularly when some Members hold positions as judges and / or acting judges and have held their law degrees since the mid-20th Century.
“It is absolutely disgraceful and illegal to consider a Costs Wish in the context of GIPA or PPIP in NCAT. Any such application by any agency should be readily dismissed, and that should be done at the Registry at first instance upon receipt. The public should NOT be expected to cover the unnecessary waste of public funds for the consideration of such defective applications, not to mention the bringing of cases and / or hearings. It’s unlawful! No person should have to deal with the distress and uncertainty formulating a defence, compounded when agencies engage large legal teams including barristers, law partners, and special counsels,” stated Telina Webb of NSW FOI.
“NCAT advertises ‘you can be your own best advocate'; it’s entrapment. A person makes an Access Application for government information under GIPA for $30.00, a PPIP Application costs zero, and ends up facing a bill for thousands of dollars; and it’s not even based in law! Of course this situation has been endorsed and promoted by the Dept of Communities and Justice (under the banner of the NSW Attorney-General), where its Director of the Open Government Information and Privacy Unit one Ms Jodie Cobbin published a document in a public forum RECOMMENDING seeking costs as a management strategy against those who continue to exercise their legal rights to access NSW government information. But what can we expect from this ex-NSW Police Superintendent who is evidenced to breach the public’s privacy, bypass legislative protocols, and act to compile dossiers on the public she is placed to serve,” stated Webb. “This atrocious and criminal example of what the public can expect from those highly paid individuals placed in positions of public trust, is not however unique. It’s now indisputably standard operating procedure.”
“I’m calling on all members of the public who have had costs orders against them since the inception of the NCAT Act 2013, in the context of GIPA and PPIP. I invite you to contact me directly on info@nswfreedomofinformation.net. I want to hear your story. If you have been anonymised in your particular caselaw don’t be afraid, you can retain your anonymity if you choose. I understand your fear of reprisals for breaching confidentiality orders, and I will respect that. But bear in mind the recent case of New South Wales v Wojciechowska (2025) HCA 27 which makes clear NCAT Orders are not binding.”
“If you are on the recent receiving-end of any Costs Application as a Respondent, and about to compile your submissions, I also invite you to contact me without delay,” stated Webb. "If an agency has threatened you with Costs, contact me."
“My husband and I have faced the unlawful awarding of costs in NCAT through GIPA and PPIP several times to the staggering total of approximately $55,000.00, where we were threatened with bankruptcy proceedings in the Federal Court, such is the cost of endeavouring to access our beneficial legislation GIPA and PPIP. At first I believed NCAT had acted correctly and in full accordance with the legislation, and so we did make good on some of those Orders. But in 2023 I became aware NCAT was acting in contravention of the legislation, without any jurisdictional powers to do so. The agency responsible is Port Stephens Council, well reported on this Site, which sought proceedings in the Federal Court in order for a false claim of monies totalling $55,729.46 to obstruct my rights of defence to a Statement of Claim in the NSW Local Court. These are very serious matters within our judiciary and government agencies, and I have no intention of being silenced about such blatant acts of corruption comprising fraud and extortion, facilitated by the abuse of judicial processes by our public servants, in this instance Port Stephens Council's dynamic duo Tony Leslie Wickham Governance Manager and Lisa Helene Marshall Head of Legal Services,” stated Webb.
Contact:
Telina Webb, info@nswfreedomofinformation.net
NCAT: aeod@ncat.nsw.gov.au
NCAT is on the record for over a decade since its inception in 2013 repeatedly awarding costs against mostly unrepresented Applicants in NCAT proceedings, when neither the GIPA nor PPIP Acts provides any mechanism for the awarding of costs.
Thus far NCAT Members and NSW government agencies have been fully dependent upon the NCAT Act 2013 Section 60 to claim and award costs. However, such costs cannot be awarded or claimed on a lawful basis without the enabling legislation providing statutory provision to do so.
This is not news to vindictive agency personnel and their highly remunerated legal representatives; individuals well-versed in the fundamentals of how legislation operates and what enabling legislation means. Both GIPA and PPIP are enabling legislation; they facilitate the application.
In some cases though, NCAT members don’t wait for an unlawful Costs Application from a punitive, vendetta-driven agency, they simply extend the invitation to agencies to basically ‘come and get it’.
They know in most cases an appeal must be lodged in the NSW Supreme Court and as such they also know those self-representing in NCAT have no capacity to make any case with the higher court.
NCAT itself has published a document titled “NCAT Guideline – Costs” which makes clear at Point 5 it can only make a costs order, or what NSW FOI now refers to as granting a Costs Wish, QUOTE “……IF A PARTICULAR LAW GIVES THE TRIBUNAL A CHOICE OR DISCRETION ABOUT WHO PAYS COSTS” UNQUOTE.
Clearly neither GIPA nor PPIP gives any such discretion.
In August 2024 NSW FOI provided a copy of a Request for Urgent Parliamentary Inquiry into the NCAT and NCAT Act 2013 to the President of NCAT Lea Armstrong (published on this Site). NSW FOI sought an appointment with the President to discuss numerous issues of public concern relating to NCAT but most particularly to address the issues of the ongoing unlawful awarding of costs in both GIPA and PPIP.
Her Honour Judge Lea Armstrong refused to meet.
Judge Armstrong is no stranger to the issue of unlawful claiming of funds in contravention to NSW legislation, as she is evidenced to give legal advice in her former life with the Office of the NSW Crown Solicitor in February and October 2016 to Service NSW, an agency imposing non-legislated fees upon the public in the form of EFTPOS charges. Judge Armstrong is on the record stating unless such impositions arise from the legislation, they are not supported by law.
Not withstanding that earlier legal advice, Ms Armstrong has been a Judge since 2018 and is fully expected to properly educate those under her charge, being Tribunal Members of NCAT, about all things NCAT including accurate statutory interpretation. In fact, the current NCAT Tribunal Member Terms and Conditions (7.3) requires regular professional development so there's no excuse whatsoever for any degree of innocence or ignorance, particularly when some Members hold positions as judges and / or acting judges and have held their law degrees since the mid-20th Century.
“It is absolutely disgraceful and illegal to consider a Costs Wish in the context of GIPA or PPIP in NCAT. Any such application by any agency should be readily dismissed, and that should be done at the Registry at first instance upon receipt. The public should NOT be expected to cover the unnecessary waste of public funds for the consideration of such defective applications, not to mention the bringing of cases and / or hearings. It’s unlawful! No person should have to deal with the distress and uncertainty formulating a defence, compounded when agencies engage large legal teams including barristers, law partners, and special counsels,” stated Telina Webb of NSW FOI.
“NCAT advertises ‘you can be your own best advocate'; it’s entrapment. A person makes an Access Application for government information under GIPA for $30.00, a PPIP Application costs zero, and ends up facing a bill for thousands of dollars; and it’s not even based in law! Of course this situation has been endorsed and promoted by the Dept of Communities and Justice (under the banner of the NSW Attorney-General), where its Director of the Open Government Information and Privacy Unit one Ms Jodie Cobbin published a document in a public forum RECOMMENDING seeking costs as a management strategy against those who continue to exercise their legal rights to access NSW government information. But what can we expect from this ex-NSW Police Superintendent who is evidenced to breach the public’s privacy, bypass legislative protocols, and act to compile dossiers on the public she is placed to serve,” stated Webb. “This atrocious and criminal example of what the public can expect from those highly paid individuals placed in positions of public trust, is not however unique. It’s now indisputably standard operating procedure.”
“I’m calling on all members of the public who have had costs orders against them since the inception of the NCAT Act 2013, in the context of GIPA and PPIP. I invite you to contact me directly on info@nswfreedomofinformation.net. I want to hear your story. If you have been anonymised in your particular caselaw don’t be afraid, you can retain your anonymity if you choose. I understand your fear of reprisals for breaching confidentiality orders, and I will respect that. But bear in mind the recent case of New South Wales v Wojciechowska (2025) HCA 27 which makes clear NCAT Orders are not binding.”
“If you are on the recent receiving-end of any Costs Application as a Respondent, and about to compile your submissions, I also invite you to contact me without delay,” stated Webb. "If an agency has threatened you with Costs, contact me."
“My husband and I have faced the unlawful awarding of costs in NCAT through GIPA and PPIP several times to the staggering total of approximately $55,000.00, where we were threatened with bankruptcy proceedings in the Federal Court, such is the cost of endeavouring to access our beneficial legislation GIPA and PPIP. At first I believed NCAT had acted correctly and in full accordance with the legislation, and so we did make good on some of those Orders. But in 2023 I became aware NCAT was acting in contravention of the legislation, without any jurisdictional powers to do so. The agency responsible is Port Stephens Council, well reported on this Site, which sought proceedings in the Federal Court in order for a false claim of monies totalling $55,729.46 to obstruct my rights of defence to a Statement of Claim in the NSW Local Court. These are very serious matters within our judiciary and government agencies, and I have no intention of being silenced about such blatant acts of corruption comprising fraud and extortion, facilitated by the abuse of judicial processes by our public servants, in this instance Port Stephens Council's dynamic duo Tony Leslie Wickham Governance Manager and Lisa Helene Marshall Head of Legal Services,” stated Webb.
Contact:
Telina Webb, info@nswfreedomofinformation.net
NCAT: aeod@ncat.nsw.gov.au
Contact us using this form to start your conversation about NCAT costs in GIPA or PPIP.