Download original attachment
(PDF file)

This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'IME/Expert witness payments to Dr Micheal Paige Sandbank for matters at the AAT/ART'.



Our reference: IR 24/25-023 | IR 24/25-024 | IR 24/25-025 | IR 24/25-026 
GPO Box 700 
Canberra   ACT   2601 
1800 800 110 
8 May 2025 
ndis.gov.au 
 
 
David Wright 
 
By email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx  
 
Dear David Wright 
 
Freedom of Information request — Internal Review Decision 
 
Thank you for your correspondence of 8 April 2024, in which you requested internal reviews 
of the original decisions made in FOI 24/25-1403, FOI 24/25-1404, FOI 24/25-1405 and FOI 
24/25-1406 by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA), under the Freedom of 
Information Act 1982 (FOI Act).  
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with a decision on your requests for internal 
review.  
 
Original Decision 
 
On 26 February 2025, you made 4 separate requests for access to documents relating to 
each of the following ‘Independent Medical Experts’: 
“1) The number of AAT/ART matters where the NDIA has engaged Dr Sandbank/Dr 
McDowell/Dr Pincus/Dr Maclean (regardless of whether these matters reached the stage 
of a hearing or not). 
2) The total amount of payments made by the NDIA to Dr Sandbank/Dr McDowell/Dr 
Pincus/Dr Maclean for all his/her services for these matters. 
 
Please incorporate within your response to items (1) and (2), all ART/AAT matters where 
the NDIA has engaged this expert directly, and also indirectly via any external law firm. 
That is, if an external law firm has engaged the expert on behalf of the NDIA for a matter, 
and has made any payments to the expert on behalf of the NDIA for that matter, this 
information should be included in your response. 
 
Please note that, regarding the total amount of payments in item (1), I only request a 
single total figure. I do not request that the payments be broken down for each individual 
AAT/ART matter. Copies of payment invoices and the like are also not requested.” 
 
1 
 
On 7 April 2025, the NDIA provided you with the Original Decisions in relation to your 
requests.  All 4 decisions were a refusal on the grounds that the documents do not exist and 
could not be produced under section 17(1)(c) of the FOI Act.  
Grounds for Review  
On 8 April 2025, you requested internal reviews of the Original Decisions:  
You stated that you do not accept the decision and believe the information is available to the 
agency. You stated the following:  
“1) For all AAT/ART matters where external law firms have engaged this expert, it 
would have done so only on specific instruction of the agency, which is the 
Respondent in these Tribunal matters.  There would be no circumstances where a 
law firm engaged the expert without the knowledge and approval of the agency.   
2) Such approval to engage the expert would in all instances be documented, such 
as in agency AAT/ART case files, and/or in itemised invoices from law firms to the 
agency for the payment of the expert's services. An example of such information 
being available to the agency, and released in response to another FOI request, is 
contained in FOI 24/25-0493.  This directly contradicts your claim that the agency 
does not hold such information, and that documents containing the information I seek 
do not exist. 
3) In correspondence following my earlier FOI request 24/25-0466… the reason 
given by the agency for refusing the requested information was that 'Whilst law firms 
may itemise expert witness/medical costs as part of their invoice, this level of detail is 
not captured in the Agency’s matter management system, LEX.' This clearly 
indicates that the information IS available to the agency, but just needs to be 
manually extracted from itemised invoices. Again, this directly contradicts the reason 
given in response to my current FOI request, that the agency does not hold such 
information, and that documents containing the information I seek do not exist.” 
Decision on your request for internal review 
I am authorised to make decisions under section 23(1) of the FOI Act, as well as internal 
review decision under section 54C of the FOI Act.  
2 
In undertaking an internal review, I am not bound in any way by the Original Decisions and 
am required to review the Original Decisions and make fresh decisions in accordance with 
s54C(3) of the FOI Act.   
I have reviewed the Original Decisions and have decided to affirm all 4 Original Decisions. 
The reasons for my decision are set out below. 
In making my decision, I have considered the following:  
•  your correspondence in relation to your original request 
•  the Original Decision dated 7 April 2025 
•  your grounds for seeking an internal review of the Original Decision 
•  the FOI Act, particularly section 17 and 24A 
•  the FOI Guidelines published under section 93A of the FOI Act, in particular Parts 2 and 
3 which provide commentary on the creation of new documents and guidance on 
adequacy of searches 
•  consultation with relevant NDIA staff  
•  the NDIA’s operating environment and functions. 
Reasons for decision  
Refuse a request for access (section 24A) 
Section 24A of the FOI Act provides that an agency may refuse a request for access to a 
document if all reasonable steps have been taken to find the document and the agency is 
satisfied that the document cannot be found or does not exist.  
I have made enquiries with relevant NDIA staff in the NDIA’s Legal Operations Team who 
could reasonably be expected to identify documents within the scope of your requests, and 
who would have knowledge of ART record keeping practices. These enquiries have revealed 
that the NDIA is not in possession of a document/s that would contain information matching 
the scope of your request.  
In addition, any documentation on the number of ART matters and specific costs associated 
with engagements of the experts by external law firms on behalf of the Agency, would likely 
be held by the firms engaged on those matters. 
 
3 
I am satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to locate documents matching the 
scope of your requests and that a discrete document containing the information you are 
seeking, does not exist.  
Production of a document (section 17) 
Enquiries with the NDIA’s Legal Operations Team have revealed that information relevant to 
the scope of your request may be contained amongst other records held by the NDIA. 
Section 17(1)(c) of the FOI Act provides that, in circumstances where it appears to an 
Agency that an applicant seeks access to information that is not available in a discrete form 
in a written document held by the Agency, but the Agency could produce a written document 
containing the information by use of computer or other equipment ordinarily available to the 
Agency, the Agency shall deal with the request as if it were a request for access to a 
document so produced.  
However, section 17(2) of the FOI Act states that an Agency is not required to produce a 
document where it would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the Agency 
from its other operations.  
As set out in our Original Decisions, the Director of Legal Operations advised that while 
external law firms may itemise expert witness costs as part of their invoice, this level of detail 
is not captured in the Agency’s matter management system, LEX. As such, staff would have 
to manually extract the information on costs of individual experts engaged by external law 
firms on individual ART matters.  
Legal Operations, Legal Practice and Capability staff in the data and reporting team 
estimated it would take a minimum of 25 hours per expert to extract this information. This 
includes: 
•  Searches of over 15,000 records in LEX by small sections and small date ranges at a 
time, to identify matters where the expert is mentioned. Each ART matter could 
contain hundreds of file notes and documents requiring review.  
•  Review of each matter that included mention of the expert to locate invoices from law 
firms who worked on those matters. Again, noting each ART matter could contain 
hundreds of documents.  
•  Review each monthly invoice to determine if there were any legal disbursements that 
also included the expert’s invoice.  
4 

The above information would then need to be extracted, compiled and totalled, to produce a 
document containing the information you have requested. The diversion of resources in such 
a manner would cause significant delays to the progression of other work within the Legal 
Operations, Legal Practice and Capability team. 
In addition, an FOI officer would then need to review the information, make a decision on the 
release of the information and draft a decision letter. In total, we estimate that it would take 
more than 100 hours to process all 4 of your requests.  
As previously advised in our Original Decisions, while we acknowledge your request for 
consultation with the potential to narrow the scopes by a particular date range, Legal 
Operations have confirmed that this would still substantially and unreasonably divert the 
resources of the Agency in accordance with section 17(2). Staff would still need to manually 
search all documents, invoices, emails, and file notes within LEX for internal engagements.  
Based on the above, I am satisfied that a discrete document containing the information you 
have requested does not exist. Further, it would be a substantial and unreasonable diversion 
of resources for the Agency to produce any such document. As such I have decided to 
refuse access to your request in accordance with sections 24A and 17(2) of the FOI Act.  
Rights of review 
I have set out your rights to seek a review of my decision in Attachment A. 
Should you have any enquiries concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me 
by email at xxx@xxxx.xxx.xx. 
 
 
Yours sincerely 
 
 
 
 
Emmanuel (EJC065) 
Assistant Director – Freedom of Information  
Information Release, Privacy and Legal Operations Branch 
Reviews and Information Release Division
5 

 
Attachment A 
Your review rights  
 
External Review by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner 
The FOI Act also gives you the right to apply to the Office of the Australian Information 
Commissioner (OAIC) to seek a review of this decision. 
 
If you wish to have the decision reviewed by the OAIC, you may apply for the review, in 
writing, or by using the online merits review form available on the OAIC’s website at 
www.oaic.gov.au, within 60 days of receipt of this letter.  
 
Applications for review can be lodged with the OAIC in the following ways: 
 
Online: 
www.oaic.gov.au  
Post:  
GPO Box 5218, Sydney NSW 2001 
Email: 
xxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx 
Phone: 
1300 363 992 (local call charge) 
 
Complaints to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner or the 
Commonwealth Ombudsman 
You may complain to either the Commonwealth Ombudsman or the OAIC about actions 
taken by the NDIA in relation to your request. The Ombudsman will consult with the OAIC 
before investigating a complaint about the handling of an FOI request. 
 
Your complaint to the OAIC can be directed to the contact details identified above. Your 
complaint to the Ombudsman can be directed to: 
 
Phone: 
1300 362 072 (local call charge) 
Email:  
xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx  
 
Your complaint should be in writing and should set out the grounds on which it is considered 
that the actions taken in relation to the request should be investigated. 
 
1