Zonnevylle v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice

1. On 8 May 2025 Principal Member Blake dismissed the application and confirmed the appeal was listed for hearing on 9 May 2025 at 10:15 am in Sydney for half a day. Mr Zonnevylle's request to attend the hearing by telephone was refused.
2. Shortly before the hearing before us Mr Zonnevylle had contacted the Tribunal Registry requesting dial in details for the hearing and indicated he was unwell. He was advised that the hearing was listed as an in person hearing.
3. Mr Zonnevylle did not appear at the hearing. We refused his request to appear by telephone, adjourned the hearing and made some further procedural orders.
4. Mr Zonnevylle has sought written reasons for the orders made on 9 May 2025. Although we are not required, in accordance with s 62(2A) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (the NCAT Act) to provide written reasons for our orders, as Mr Zonnevylle was not present at the hearing, we have decided to provide brief reasons so he may understand the basis upon which the orders were made.

(1) The name of the respondent is amended to Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice.

(2) The application by the applicant to appear by telephone is refused.

(3) The application to grant an extension of time to lodge the appeal to 2 January 2025 is granted.

(4) The application by the applicant to cross-examine Michelle Chua Hua is refused as Ms Hua was not a witness in the Tribunal proceedings and is not a witness in the appeal.

(5) The respondent is to provide to the Tribunal and the applicant any evidence and submissions relating to any authorisation under s 9(3) of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 of the person who made the decision of 29 May 2020 by 16 May 2025.

(6) The applicant is to provide any material in response to the evidence and submissions filed by the respondent in accordance with order 5 by 13 June 2025.

(7) The hearing is adjourned to 10:15 am on 3 July 2025 in Sydney for half a day to allow the applicant to appear in person.

1. We note that references to the "applicant" in the orders should be references to the "appellant".

1. Our brief reasons for making the above orders are set out below.

1. We amended the name of the respondent to the correct legal entity, that is, the Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice.

1. We treated Mr Zonnevylle's request to the Registry as a request to appear by telephone at the appeal hearing. We refused that request noting that a similar request had been refused by Principal Member Blake the day before the hearing. We agreed with the assessment of Principal Member Blake in Zonnevylle v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2025] NSWCATAP 103 that in view of the number of documents filed in the appeal, the efficient conduct of the hearing would be enhanced by the personal presence of Mr Zonnevylle.

1. Mr Zonnevylle's appeal was lodged slightly out of time. There was no objection by the respondent to an extension of time and we made an order extending the time for lodgement.

1. This is an appeal from the decision that was made by the Tribunal. An appeal to the Appeal Panel does not provide a losing party in the Tribunal with the opportunity to run their case again: Bowers v Karai [2021] NSWCATAP 316 at [11]; Ryan v BKB Motor Vehicle Repairs Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAP 39 at [10]. As stated in the order Ms Hua, the solicitor representing the respondent, was not a witness in the Tribunal proceedings and is not a witness in the appeal. Ms Hua has provided no evidence upon which she could be cross-examined and we were therefore not satisfied that cross-examination was appropriate or necessary.

1. One of the grounds in Mr Zonnevylle's appeal is that the officer who made the original decision was not properly authorised to do so. The Appeal Panel may exercise all the functions that are conferred or imposed by the NCAT Act or other legislation on the Tribunal at first instance: s 81(2) of the NCAT Act. The Appeal Panel is therefore empowered to inquire into and inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks fit, subject to the rules of natural justice: see s 38 of the NCAT Act.
2. If Mr Zonnevylle is successful in relation to this ground of appeal, that will be dispositive of the appeal. We therefore made order 5 requiring the respondent to provide evidence of authorisation and order 6 to provide Mr Zonnevylle with a right of reply.

1. In light of the fact that Mr Zonnevylle had advised the Registry he was unwell, we adjourned the hearing to 3 July 2025 to allow him to attend in person.

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.