Australia, June 30 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on May 30:

1. SEIDEN SC DCJ, DEPUTY PRESIDENT: This appeal arises from a decision in relation to a matter heard by the Tribunal, at first instance, on 17 December 2024. The order made on 15 November 2024, listing that matter, was as follows:

"The matter is listed for directions and compliance with the summons to produce at 2:00pm on 17 December 2024 for 1 hour."

2. There is some dispute as to the intended scope of the hearing on 17 December; but it suffices, for the purposes of this decision which concerns a recusal application, to highlight that the decision appealed concerned timetabling for the underlying matter and a summons.

3. There was some urgency to determining this appeal because the appellant maintained that a certain document, said to be vital to the appellant's underlying application for administrative review of the respondent's decision to refuse to amend personal information pursuant to s 15 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) (Privacy Act), which was due to be heard 22 May 2025, was not produced. We refer to this document as the 2017 SAP Manual.

4. To relieve the urgency, the Appeal Panel, after confirming with the respondent that there was no prejudice to them if the hearing was vacated, vacated the hearing of the administrative review application. In due course, the underlying administrative review application will be listed for further directions and a new hearing date will be set.

5. Insofar as the substantive appeal is concerned, the respondent maintains that the 2017 SAP Manual is not in their possession, custody or control; and the appellant disputes this. That dispute will be the subject of another decision of this Appeal Panel.

6. On the eve of the appeal hearing, on learning the proposed constitution of the Appeal Panel, the appellant made an application that I recuse myself.

7. I declined to recuse myself. These are the reasons for that decision.

8. As the Appeal Panel was constituted by two members, it was necessary for each member to consider their position; and in particular, whether they considered that the Appeal Panel could discharge its function as presently constituted: QYFM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2023) 279 CLR 148; [2023] HCA 15 (QYFM) at [30]-[35] (per Kiefel CJ and Gageler J); at [94]-[105] (per Gordon J); at [131]-[133] (per Edelman J); at [193] (per Steward J).

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1971a60636fc34ba40b7f497)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.