Australia, July 2 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement:

1. Mr Andrey Efremov (the Applicant) seeks access to information held by the NSW Health Administration Corporation (the Respondent) in relation to medical devices which were used to test for Lyme disease in the period 2013 to 2024.

2. This is an application for administrative review of a decision of the Respondent to refuse to deal with an application to access information in reliance on s 60(1)(a) of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA Act), on the grounds that to do so would require an unreasonable and substantial diversion of the Respondent's resources.

Jurisdiction

3. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review an administratively reviewable decision pursuant to s 55 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (the ADR Act). The decision to refuse to deal with an access application is a reviewable decision by an agency in accordance with s 80(c) of the GIPA Act. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine this application pursuant to s 100 of the GIPA Act.

4. The Respondent is a statutory body representing the Crown as per s 9(2)(f) of the Health Administration Act 1982 (NSW), and falls within the definition of agency as per s 4(1) and clause 2 of Schedule 4 of the GIPA Act.

Material before the Tribunal

5. The material before the Tribunal included submissions and correspondence by both parties.

6. The Applicant provided an Affidavit affirmed on 5 April 2025, together with written submissions and a bundle of documents filed with the Tribunal on 5 April 2025 and additional documents filed on 6 May 2025.

7. The Respondent provided written submissions filed on 21 March 2025, their tender bundle on 24 March 2025, and a Tribunal Book on 13 May 2025. The Respondent also provided the Affidavit of Mr Matthew Ryan, an officer of the Respondent, sworn 18 March 2025, who gave evidence at the hearing before the Tribunal.

8. Both parties made oral submissions at the hearing, but mostly relied on their written submissions.

9. The Applicant challenged the validity of Mr Ryan's Affidavit asserting that each page was not properly signed or witnessed. The rules of evidence do not apply in the Tribunal, however I note that the Affidavit was properly sworn and witnessed. Mr Ryan confirmed its contents as true, and the Applicant was provided with an opportunity to cross-examine Mr Ryan.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1971e234de71d14262dc8ea8)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.