FHP v Arys Health Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATAP 220;

1. On 4 June 2020, FHP as the applicant commenced proceedings 2023/00125820 in the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division against Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force as the respondent by lodging an Administrative review application form in which he sought a review under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) (GIPA Act) of the decision made on 13 January 2020 (the 13 January 2020 Decision).
2. On 15 December 2022, the Tribunal constituted by Senior Member French decided to affirm the decision of the respondent made under the GIPA Act that it did not hold further information and that there was an overriding public interest against disclosure of specified documents.

1. On 19 April 2023, FHP as the applicant commenced proceedings 2023/00125820 in the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division against Legal Aid NSW as the respondent by lodging an Administrative review application form in which he sought a review of what he contended was the decision made on 6 February 2023.
2. On 11 July 2023, the Tribunal constituted by Senior Member Ransome dismissed the proceedings because they were misconceived and lacking in substance because the respondent had not made an administratively reviewable decision (the 11 July 2023 Decision).

1. On 5 October 2023, FHP as the applicant commenced proceedings 2023/00315508 against Legal Aid NSW as the respondent by lodging a notice of appeal in which he appealed against the 11 July 2023 Decision.
2. On 28 March 2024, the Appeal Panel constituted by Principal Member Coleman and Senior Member Mulvey dismissed the appeal and refused leave to appeal against the 11 July 2023 Decision.

1. On 10 February 2023, FHP as the applicant commenced proceedings 2023/00045656 in the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division against Arys Health Pty Ltd (Arys) as the respondent by lodging an Administrative review application form in which he sought a review of the decision of the Privacy Commissioner made on 16 January 2023 under the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (NSW) relating to provision of his health records.
2. On 30 January 2024, the Tribunal constituted by Senior Member French relevantly decided to join Baig Medical Services Pty Ltd (Baig) as a respondent, take no action on the matter insofar as it concerns Arys and to determine in the future whether the inquiry should continue with respect to Baig: FHP v Arys Health Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCATAD 27 (the 30 January 2024 Decision). The Senior Member at [67]-[68] found that FHP's first and last recorded attendances at the medical practice in question were on 17 January 2017 and 16 March 2022, and the records are retained by V Plus Corporation Pty Ltd on behalf of Arys in respect of the period 17 January 2017 up to about May 2021, but after that date Baig was responsible for the retention of those records.
3. On 20 September 2024, the Tribunal constituted by Senior Member French decided to take no action on the matter insofar as it concerns Baig: FHP v Baig Medical Services Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCATAD 280 (the 20 September 2024 Decision).

1. On 17 October 2024, FHP as the appellant commenced proceedings 2024/00385607 against Arys and Baig as the respondents by lodging a notice of appeal in which he appealed against the 30 January 2024 Decision and the 20 September 2024 Decision.
2. On 30 October 2024, the Appeal Panel constituted by myself made procedural orders for the hearing of the Appeal including order 2 for the Appellant to lodge and serve its evidence and submissions by 27 November 2024, order 3 for the Respondents to lodge and serve their evidence and submissions by 11 December 2024 and order 4 for the Appellant to lodge any submissions in reply by 8 January 2025, and listed the Appeal for hearing on 24 January 2025 at 2.15 PM.
3. On 13 November 2024, FHP lodged the following documents:

(1) an Application for miscellaneous matters in which he sought the joinder of Legal Aid NSW as a respondent (the First 13 November 2024 Application);

(2) Grounds of Application;

(3) Submissions dated 12 November 2024;

(4) his affidavit affirmed on 27 November 2023 for proceedings 2023/00315508;

(5) coversheet of his affidavit and proceedings 2018/00089981 in the Supreme Court of New South Wales in which he is named the plaintiff and the Attorney General NSW is named as the defendant with a stamp "Crown Solicitor New South Wales 4 May 2018" and the accompanying page 16.

1. On 13 November 2024, FHP also lodged the following documents:

(1) an Application for miscellaneous matters in which he sought the joinder of the Turkish Consulate General, Sydney as a respondent (the Second 13 November 2024 Application);

(2) Grounds of Application;

(3) his affidavit affirmed on 25 March 2022 for proceedings 2020/00166818;

(4) the letter of FHP dated 20 June 2021 to Ecevit Demir.

1. Before considering the First and Second 13 November 2024 Applications, I have set out the applicable statutory provisions and legal principles, and summarised the grounds, evidence and submissions of FHP.

1. Section 41 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (NCAT Act) deals with extensions of time, and relevantly provides:

41 Extensions of time

(1) The Tribunal may, of its own motion or on application by any person, extend the period of time for the doing of anything under any legislation in respect of which the Tribunal has jurisdiction despite anything to the contrary under that legislation.

(2) Such an application may be made even though the relevant period of time has expired

1. Section 44 of the NCAT Act deals with parties and intervention, and relevantly provides:

44 Parties and intervention

(1) The Tribunal may order that a person be joined as a party to proceedings if the Tribunal considers that the person should be joined as a party.

(2) The Tribunal may order that a person be removed as a party to proceedings if the Tribunal considers that the person has -

(a) been improperly or unnecessarily joined, or

(b) ceased to be a proper or necessary party.

...

1. In Rice Marketing Board for the State of New South Wales v Forbidden Foods Pty Limited; Forbidden Foods Pty Limited v Rice Marketing Board for the State of New South Wales [2020] NSWCATAP 182 (RMB) at [104]-[105], the Appeal Panel set out the following principles with respect to the joinder of parties to proceedings:

"[104] Section 44(1) gives the Appeal Panel power to order that a person should be joined as a party to proceedings if the Appeal Panel considers that the person should be joined a party. Section 44(2) provides for the removal of parties if "the person has been improperly or unnecessarily joined or ceased to be a proper or necessary party". Given those provisions and the relevant authorities, a person should be joined as a party if the Appeal Panel considers that joinder is "proper" or "necessary".

[105] When deciding whether to exercise the discretion to join a person as a "party", "the nature and extent of the review being undertaken, the position or interest of the party to be joined and the circumstances of the case" are all relevant factors. Whether prejudice would be caused by joinder, such as delay to proceedings, is relevant. Further, as previously stated by the Tribunal, "[w]hen exercising its powers under the [NCAT Act], including the power under s 44(1), the Tribunal is to seek to give effect to the guiding principle...to facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings"." (citations omitted)

The grounds, evidence and submissions in support of the First 13 November 2024 Application

1. I have read the documents lodged in support of the First 13 November 2024 Application, and have not been able to understand the nature of FHP's allegations against Legal Aid NSW except that they relate to events that took place in 2007 and 2008.
2. In an attempt to understand the nature of FHP's allegations against Legal Aid NSW, I have had regard to the 11 July 2023 Decision at [13] to [15] where Senior Member Ransome set out the following information:

"13 The following background is set out in the decision of the Tribunal in Ugur v Public Guardian [2022] NSWCATAD 279. Mr Ugur arrived in Australia in 1990 on a student visa. Following cessation of that visa he remained in Australia, and he was detained in Villawood Detention Centre.

14 In November 2006, the then Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs applied to the then Guardianship Tribunal for the appointment of a guardian for Mr Ugur. In February 2007, the Guardianship Tribunal found that Mr Ugur had a disability and that he was at least partially incapable of managing his affairs. It appointed the Public Guardian under a limited guardianship order for a period of 12 months, with authority to make decisions about Mr Ugur's:

• accommodation;

• health care;

• medical and dental treatment;

• services to which he should have access; and

• legal advocacy, including to obtain legal documents, arrange legal representation and advocate generally in relation to legal matters.

15 In November 2007 the Public Guardian consented to the then Legal Aid Commission (now Legal Aid NSW) processing an application for legal services received from Mr Ugur. Following a review, the guardianship order was allowed to lapse in February 2008."

The grounds, evidence and submissions in support of the Second 13 November 2024 Application

1. I have read the documents lodged in support of the Second 13 November 2024 Application, and have not been able to understand the nature of FHP's allegations against the Turkish Consulate General, Sydney except that they relate to events that took place in 2011.
2. In an attempt to understand the nature of FHP's allegations against the Turkish Consulate General, Sydney, I have had regard to the 13 January 2020 Decision in which 11 Events Reports with different numbers were identified.

1. I have been unable to discern any connection between FHP and Legal Aid NSW relating to events that took place in 2007 and 2008 or at any other time and the issues to be determined in the appeal. Having regard to the principles in RMB at [104]-[105], I am not satisfied that Legal Aid NSW is a proper or necessary party to the appeal as it does not appear that its interests were affected by either the 30 January 2024 Decision or the 20 September 2024 Decision. In the exercise of my discretion under ss 41 and 44(1) of the NCAT Act have decided that the First 13 November 2024 Application should be dismissed.

1. I have been unable to discern any connection between FHP and the Turkish Consulate General, Sydney relating to events that took place in 2011 or at any other time and the issues to be determined in the appeal. Having regard to the principles in RMB at [104]-[105], I am not satisfied that the Turkish Consulate General, Sydney is a proper or necessary party to the appeal as it does not appear that its interests were affected by either the 30 January 2024 Decision or the 20 September 2024 Decision. In the exercise of my discretion under ss 41 and 44(1) of the NCAT Act have decided that the Second 13 November 2024 Application should be dismissed.

1. On 6 March 2023, the Tribunal constituted by Senior Member Perrignon made an order pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the NCAT Act prohibiting the publication of the applicant's name and assigning him the pseudonym "FHP". I have decided to make the same orders for this appeal pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the NCAT Act.

(1) The Application for miscellaneous matters lodged by the Appellant on 13 November 2024 in which he seeks the joinder of Legal Aid NSW as a respondent is dismissed.

(2) The Application for miscellaneous matters lodged by the Appellant on 13 November 2024 in which he seeks the joinder of the Turkish Consulate General, Sydney as a respondent is dismissed.

(3) The Appeal remains listed for hearing on 24 January 2025 at 2.15 PM.

(4) Publication or broadcast of the name of the Appellant is prohibited.

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.

08 September 2025 - Coversheet: Date of Orders and Date of Decision amended.