NEW SOUTH WALES COURT ISSUES JUDGEMENT ON GREGORY MILLS V/S UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND, ET AL. CASE

Australia, July 3 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on June 3:

1. Mr Gregory Mills (the Applicant) seeks access to information held by the University of New England (the Respondent) in relation to a possible claim for breach of procedural fairness in the course of his previous employment relationship with the Respondent.

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.

Material before the Tribunal

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

5. The Applicant submitted a bundle of documents which included a detailed background summary, a copy of his communications with the Fair Work Ombudsman and Fair Work Commission, a transcript of the Federal Court of Australia proceedings between the parties in November 2023, and selected correspondence between the parties.

6. The Respondent submitted a bundle of documents which included their submissions, a copy of the Applicant's access application, correspondence between the parties, the Respondent's Decision, the IPC decision, information provided to the IPC, an Affidavit sworn 3 March 2025 by the witness, Ms Teisa Moce, and an additional letter dated 14 April 2025 in reply to the Applicant's submissions.

7. Both parties made oral submissions at the hearing, and the witness, Ms Teisa Moce, gave evidence and was cross-examined by the Applicant.

8. The IPC did not put any material before the Tribunal, nor appear at the hearing.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1971f697592902a98ab569f0)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.