Place v Department of Finance, Services and Innovation (No. 2) [2017] NSWCATAD 21

Place v Department of Finance, Services and Innovation (No. 2) [2017] NSWCATAD 21

The inadvertent publication of confidential material justified correction under s 63, but the cross-applications for wider non-publication and typographical corrections did not fall within the slip rule's scope as they involved substantive matters, not errors or omissions. The slip rule cannot be used as a means to reargue the case or as a means of challenging the correctness of substantive findings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Consequential Orders Application / Post Decision Procedural Motions
Outcome
Respondent's application granted; applicant's cross-applications dismissed (save for written reasons); corrections ordered to reasons and orders as specified.
Legal Topics
['slip Rule' 'publication Restriction' 'correction of Orders' 'access to Government Information']
['administrative Law'] ['slip Rule' 'publication Restriction' 'correction of Orders' 'access to Government Information']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Consequential Orders Application / Post Decision Procedural Motions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the slip rule under s 63 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 applies to correct published tribunal reasons' 'Whether publication restrictions and corrections to confidential information in tribunal decisions are warranted']

Ratio Decidendi

The inadvertent publication of confidential material justified correction under s 63, but the cross-applications for wider non-publication and typographical corrections did not fall within the slip rule's scope as they involved substantive matters, not errors or omissions. The slip rule cannot be used as a means to reargue the case or as a means of challenging the correctness of substantive findings.

Court Disposition

Respondent's application granted; applicant's cross-applications dismissed (save for written reasons); corrections ordered to reasons and orders as specified.

Orders

  • ["The respondent department's application under s 63 of the CAT Act is granted." "The applicant's cross-applications are dismissed, except for his application for written reasons." "Paragraph 173 of the principal decision open reasons dated 29 November 2016 is corrected by deleting the quoted passage and...