1. Mr Goldberg argued that that letter (15 August 2011) makes it clear that the applicant does not wish to have that part (where exemptions are claimed) of the documents requested reviewed. What she is seeking to be reviewed are the documents which she believes the hospital may have, which it says it does not have. The hospital has said that that is not reviewable pursuant to s 50 of the VCAT Act for the same reasons as I have discussed in the second proceeding.
2. I had some difficulty in interpreting what the applicant was requesting. I have looked at the entire letter (15 August 2011) and, in my view, the tone of the whole letter is clear that she is seeking the documents which she was not given (as opposed to those where exemption is claimed). Some fortification in that view is given by the words the applicant has used herself. In the paragraph which I have perused, she said that she is making the request in accordance with s 25(b) and (c) of the FOI Act. She makes no mention of s 25(a) at all. I note that s 25(a) states -

(a) a decision is made not to grant a request for access to a document on the ground that it is an exempt document or that to grant the request would disclose information that would reasonably be regarded as irrelevant to the request;

She does not make any request under that sub-section at all. Therefore, I find that her request for internal review does not go to the documents where exemption was claimed and I will make orders in defining that parameter of that proceeding accordingly. I have said I will adjourn that proceeding in any event.

1. Before I leave this decision, I think it should be noted that continually throughout the morning, the applicant interrupted when I was speaking or Mr Goldberg was making submissions. The applicant was given opportunity first thing this morning to make submissions which she made in relation to extension of time. When Mr Goldberg started to make submissions, she continually interrupted and complained she had not been given the opportunity to make submissions first. I told her she would have been given full opportunity to make submissions. However, she continued to interrupt. She then made an application that I disqualify myself on the ground of bias. I dealt with that application and I refused to disqualify myself.
2. There were then matters that I needed to discuss with Mr Goldberg. They were matters that would assist in defining the parameters of the case because I wanted to know what concessions, if any, the respondent was going to make and, indeed, the respondent did make concession that this Tribunal did have jurisdiction to review matters where the respondent claimed documents did not exist. As I was still questioning Mr Goldberg as to what he said about the parameters of this case were, the applicant still continued to interrupt and at times in a loud screaming voice. She made matters uncomfortable for both myself and, I am sure, for Mr Goldberg.
3. The applicant throughout the morning said she was sick and could not continue. On occasions, I offered her an adjournment if she was sick and could not continue. She refused that. However, while Mr Goldberg was still talking to me about the parameters of the case, she then said she was sick and did not want to continue. She said she had not been given sufficient opportunity to be heard. She of course would have been given full opportunity to address me after I had finished discussing matters with Mr Goldberg. The applicant then left the Tribunal.
4. I then decided it was appropriate to continue with the hearing because I did not believe there was with her (the applicant) a genuineness in wanting to look after her own health. I believe what she wanted to do was basically disrupt the proceeding. If she had been concerned with her own health, she would have accepted my invitation, which I made on occasions during the morning, to adjourn. In any event, the matters that I was dealing with were largely (except for minor jurisdictional matters) interlocutory. I decided it was appropriate to go on hearing and define the scope of the proceeding, ie the scope of the first proceeding. Therefore, there was further address and discussion between myself and Mr Goldberg and, as a result, I decided to make the orders which I said I would make and I did so.