but whether, considering the circumstances of this review, in the context of the statutory scheme, this delay is unreasonable in that sense. The concept is not absolute or abstract, but rather contextual both in relation to the statute in question and the particular facts of the case at hand.
74 In our view the primary judge was correct to conclude that, in respect to the sixth IC review, the appellant had not established the delay was unreasonable. Nor has any error otherwise been established in the primary judge's approach.
75 As this review is the high point of the appellant's case, having considered the material in relation to the other reviews, we are also not persuaded that the lesser periods of time in the remaining reviews are unreasonable, having regard also to the fact that a number of the other reviews have additional complexity because of the nature of the documents sought and various procedural steps (for example, applications for extensions, notification of a revised decision, etc.). We note also, as the respondent demonstrated, that in some of those reviews there was activity in the periods described by the appellant as ones of inactivity. No error has been established in relation to the remaining reviews.
Discretion
76 Declarations are necessarily a form of discretionary relief obtainable under s 21 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and s 16(3)(b) of the ADJR Act. The appellant seeks no other relief. Rather, in substance he seeks no more than the convenience of a public statement of what he asserts is a failure by the respondent to comply with a statutory duty. He does not explain why, if that had been established, an adjudication on that issue and the recording in a judgment of this Court of a finding to that effect would not suffice. As the Full Court pointed out in Warramunda Village Inc v Pryde [2001] FCA 61; (2001) 105 FCR 437 at [8], endorsed in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v MSY Technology Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 56; (2012) 201 FCR 378 (MSY Technology) at [35], it is not appropriate to use the remedy of declaration merely as a summary recording of conclusions reached in reasons for judgment, especially when this is not relied upon to advance any right or liability, as would be achieved by an order to comply with the duty, which is eschewed by the appellant. See also Rural Press Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2003] HCA 75; (2003) 216 CLR 53 at [95], in which the High Court emphasised the need for utility in making declarations, in that case, as described in MSY Technology at [35] as "setting out of the basis of the liability found and, in turn, in the basis for the penalties imposed".
