Page:Patrick v Australian Information Commissioner (FCAFC).pdf/8

 include that the IC review is to be conducted with as little formality and technicality as possible and "in as timely a manner as is possible given" specified matters: the requirements of the FOI Act and any other law and the proper consideration of the matters before the Information Commissioner. See [47]–[52] below.


 * (7) The Information Commissioner is authorised by s 55(2)(e) to give written directions in relation to the procedure to be followed in relation to IC reviews generally, or in relation to a particular IC review. Such a direction is not a legislative instrument: s 55(3). The Information Commissioner has published directions in relation to reviews generally.


 * (8) At any time while an IC review is on foot, an agency or a Minister may vary, or set aside and substitute, an access refusal decision if, inter alia, it would have the effect of giving access to a document in accordance with the subject request. Where there is a variation or substitution of a decision, the Information Commissioner must deal with the IC review application as if it were an application to review the varied or substituted decision: s 55G.


 * (9) An important provision is s 55K:


 * (10) Under s 55K(4), a decision on an IC review must include a statement of reasons for the decision. This obligation attracts the requirements of s 25D of the Acts Interpretation Act to set out in the statement the findings on material questions of fact and to refer to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)

17 As explained above at [4], the appellant, by bringing a review pursuant to s 7(1) of the ADJR Act, presses for declarations to be made to vindicate his contention that the legal limits on the AIC's authority have been exceeded because his right to IC review has been unlawfully delayed. Patrick v Australian Information Commissioner [2024] FCAFC 93