Chi v Office of Legal Services Commission NSW

Texts Cited: Nil

Category: Procedural rulings

Parties: Johny Chi (Applicant)
NSW Legal Services Commissioner (Respondent)

Representation: Self-represented (Applicant)
NSW Legal Services Commissioner (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2025/00434209

Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 13 November 2025 Johny Chi filed an administrative review application with the Tribunal naming the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner NSW (OLSC) as the respondent. In the section of the application form relating to the decision to be reviewed Mr Chi wrote “refused to provide GIPA request”.

2. In documents attached to the application form Mr Chi referred to previous proceedings in the Tribunal (Chi v NSW Legal Services Commissioner [2025] NSWCATOD 103) which had been dismissed by the Tribunal constituted by the President on 11 August 2025 for want of jurisdiction. That matter concerned a complaint Mr Chi had made to the NSW Legal Services Commissioner (the Commissioner) in November 2024 about three lawyers who had acted for the insurer some years before in a claim resulting from a motor vehicle accident. The complaint was referred to the Law Society of NSW by the Commissioner and, on 24 December 2024, the Law Society advised Mr Chi it had decided to close his complaint.

3. Mr Chi then asked the Commissioner to conduct an internal review of the Law Society’s decision to close his complaint. The Commissioner refused the review request and it was that decision that prompted Mr Chi’s application to the Tribunal in Chi v NSW Legal Services Commissioner.

4. In an affidavit attached to the application in this matter, Mr Chi stated that during the hearing in Chi v NSW Legal Services Commissioner, the OLSC agreed to review his complaint about the solicitors. He then states that on 28 October 2025 the OLSC refused to review his complaint.

5. In the affidavit Mr Chi sought that the Tribunal:

(a) Include the 28 October 2025 refusal decision as a “new reviewable administrative action”; (b) Grant leave to reopen or amend his original application (presumably the application in Chi v NSW Legal Services Commissioner); and (c) Consider referring the material in this matter to the Attorney-General or a Parliamentary oversight committee for review of potential system integrity issues.

6. Mr Chi referred to various annexures to the affidavit, including a copy of the 28 October 2025 decision, but none were annexed.

7. Mr Chi did attach to the affidavit a “NCAT Notice of Motion” he had filed on 22 October 2025 in Chi v NSW Legal Services Commissioner which related to alleged conduct of NSW Police and the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission. Also attached was an email to Mr Chi from OLSC which referred to a request for information which had been made by Mr Chi and a response from the OLSC of 31 October 2025 in which it seems that Mr Chi was advised the information sought was excluded information under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) (GIPA Act) and, therefore an access application could not be made for access to that application: s 43 GIPA Act.

8. Following receipt of Mr Chi’s application, directions were made by the Tribunal setting a timetable for the parties to provide submissions and other material as to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to deal with the application as it was not clear what decision was sought to be reviewed.

9. On 12 January 2026 Mr Chi lodged an application for a stay. In that application he in fact sought orders that a particular member of the Tribunal not deal with his application on the basis that the member is biased. That application was placed on file for future reference as the member had not in fact been allocated to the case.

10. Mr Chi provided submissions on 28 November 2025, 16 January 2026, 2 February 2026 and 17 February 2026. OLSC provide submissions on 12 December 2025 and 12 February 2026.

11. The parties were asked to identify in their submissions whether the determination of the jurisdiction question should be dealt with on the basis of the written submissions provided. OLSC was in favour of this course but Mr Chi objected on various grounds and stated an oral hearing is necessary. Most of those grounds, however, do not go to the question of jurisdiction but raise allegations of conspiracy and corruption which are not relevant to the question of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to deal with the application.

12. I am satisfied that the issue of jurisdiction can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties and I therefore dispense with a hearing pursuant to s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (NCAT Act).

Proper respondent

13. When he filed his application with the Tribunal, Mr Chi named OLSC as the respondent. When the application was registered, however, the Commissioner was named as the respondent. The OLSC submits, and I agree, that the OLSC is the proper respondent.

What is the decision to be reviewed?

14. Mr Chi’s submissions refer to a range of matters, some of which are not germane to the issue to be decided concerning the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It is therefore not necessary to set out those matters in any detail, including his references to corrupt conduct on the part of various agencies which include the OLSC and the Tribunal.

15. In relation to the decision which he seeks to be reviewed, in submissions dated 28 November 2025 Mr Chi refers to the Commissioner giving an undertaking in the previous Tribunal proceedings to conduct an internal review of the Law Society’s decision to close his complaint concerning the conduct of the insurer’s solicitors. He again states that on 28 October 2025 the Commissioner refused to conduct the review as promised.

16. In those submissions Mr Chi then states that on 31 October 2025 he filed an access application under the GIPA Act with the OLSC in which he sought access to “documents, internal file notes, correspondence, or any material that recorded how the OLSC reached its refusal decision”. He states his application was refused the same day on the basis that the OLSC had “immunity” under the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) and was not required to disclose the information.

17. Mr Chi states the refusal is a reviewable decision under the GIPA Act within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. He states his application is solely about the lawfulness of the refusal decision.

18. The OLSC notes that Mr Chi appears to be seeking review of a GIPA decision made on 31 October 2025. OLSC also refers to a decision of 3 November 2025 in response to emails from Mr Chi following the 31 October 2025. It appears that this is an internal review decision under the GIPA Act in response to a request for internal review by Mr Chi dated 2 November 2025. The OLSC has provided a copy of Mr Chi’s original access request and the decisions of 31 October 2025 and 3 November 2025.

19. It is clear that Mr Chi made an access application under the GIPA Act on 31 October 2025 seeking access to:

20. All internal correspondence, file notes, and documents relating to his complaint and review requests concerning the Law Society decision dated 12 December 2024.

21. Any internal memoranda, staff notes, legal advice, or email communications referring to his correspondence dated 27 August 2025 and the OLSC decision dated 28 October 2025.

22. Any policy, guideline, or internal decision-making framework used by the Commissioner in exercising discretion under s 313 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law.

23. Any communication between the OLSC, Law Society, or other regulatory agencies (including Bar Council or the Personal Injury Commission) regarding his complaints.

24. The access application was refused the same day on the basis that the information sought was excluded information under s 43 of the GIPA Act being information related to the complaint handling, investigative, review and reporting functions of the OLSC.

25. The internal review decision of 3 November 2025 reiterated that the access application was subject to s 43 of the GIPA Act. The decision further stated that some information in relation to points (1) and (2) of the access request “may be subject to legal professional privilege”. In relation to point (3) of the request Mr Chi was referred to documents on the OLSC website relevant to the discretion in s 313 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law.

26. The OLSC accepts that the decision of 3 November 2025 is a reviewable decision under s 80 of the GIPA Act as it is a decision (at least in relation to pints (1), (2) and (4) of the access request) that an application is not a valid access application, being in relation to excluded information under s 43. I agree that insofar as the decision relies on s 43 of the GIPA Act the decision is a reviewable decision and the application to the Tribunal is within jurisdiction.

27. The OLSC argues, however, that the application should be dismissed as Mr Chi has not articulated any appropriate orders. In that regard, Mr Chi has clearly articulated that he seeks access to the information requested which, in his view, does not fall within s 43 of the GIPA Act.

28. The OLSC also argues that the application should be dismissed as it is “unlikely to succeed” having regard to the relevant provisions of the GIPA Act concerning excluded information. The OLSC also states that it is is also relevant that some of the information sought may be subject to legal professional privilege.

29. In relation to the legal professional privilege argument, no decision has in fact been made that the information is caught by the privilege. It is difficult to understand therefore that a dismissal order could be made on that basis.

30. As for the argument concerning the validity of the application, the OLSC is, in effect, asking me to make a ruling on the substantive application in an interlocutory matter concerning jurisdiction. That is not appropriate or fair to Mr Chi.

31. I note that in submissions dated 30 January 2026 Mr Chi characterises his GIPA request of 31 October 2025 as one seeking the administrative reasons why an undertaking to the Tribunal (the undertaking given by OLSC at the hearing on 7 August 2025 before the President to review his complaint) was breached and not a request seeking access to “complaint files”. In his reply dated 16 February 2026 to the respondent’s submissions in this matter Mr Chi states his request is relates to the “administrative inaction of the OLSC following a specific judicial determination”.

32. While Mr Chi may face some difficulties in making out his case, his application is clearly one which falls within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and should be dealt with as any such application. The matter will therefore be listed for directions to progress the substantive application.

33. In his various submissions Mr Chi also seeks orders to “preserve” all documents relevant to his GIPA request and orders that the OLSC issue a “compliant” decision under ss 61 to 63 of the GIPA Act. Mr Chi also seeks other interim orders, including a stay of the refusal decision. Those orders are not appropriate or necessary to be made.

34. In a submission in this application dated 13 February 2026 Mr Chi appears to be seeking to appeal the decision of the Tribunal of 7 August 2025. Mr Chi will need to take appropriate steps in the relevant jurisdiction if he is intending to appeal the decision of the President in Chi v NSW Legal Services Commissioner.

35. For the sake of completeness, insofar as Mr Chi indicated in his application to the Tribunal that he is seeking review of the decision by OLSC of 28 October 2025 to refuse to conduct an internal review of the decision of the Law Society to close his complaint, I am satisfied that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to review that decision under the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) (ADR Act) as the decision is not an administratively reviewable decision as defined in s 7 of that Act.

36. An administratively reviewable decision is defined in s 7 of the ADR Act to be “a decision of an administrator over which the Tribunal has administrative review jurisdiction”. Section 9 provides that the Tribunal has administrative review jurisdiction over a decision of an administrator “if enabling legislation provides that applications may be made to the Tribunal for an administrative review under this Act of any such decision”. It is therefore necessary to identify a provision in enabling legislation which states that a decision of an administrator is a decision about which an application can be made to the Tribunal.

37. The enabling legislation, or legislation otherwise identified by that legislation, will generally be the legislation governing the original decision sought to be reviewed. In this matter, that is the Legal Profession Uniform Law. Under s 313 of that Act the Commissioner may, at their absolute discretion, conduct an internal review of a decision made by the Law Society Council if they consider it appropriate to do so. There is, however, no provision in the Legal Profession Uniform Law which provides that a decision of the Commissioner to refuse to conduct an internal review is an administratively reviewable decision under the ADR Act. Mr Chi has not pointed to any other legislative provision which provides for such review.

38. Insofar as Mr Chi seeks an administrative review of the decision dated 28 October 2025 to refuse to conduct an internal review under s 313 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law, the application must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Orders

1. The name of the respondent is amended to Office of the Legal Services Commissioner.
2. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the decision made on 28 October 2025 under s 313 of the Legal Profession Uniform law to refuse to conduct an internal review of a decision of the Law Society to close the applicant’s complaint and that part of the application is dismissed.
3. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the application by the applicant for access to information under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009.
4. The matter is listed for directions at 10:30 am on 16 June 2026.

**********

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar