Chief Executive, SAS Trustee Corporation -v- Daykin (GD) [2000] NSWADTAP 20

Chief Executive, SAS Trustee Corporation -v- Daykin (GD) [2000] NSWADTAP 20

The appeal was upheld because the Tribunal relied on the contents of the second medical report and on its conclusions about the role of medical advice under the statutory scheme as objective evidence bearing on dominant purpose without first giving the parties, particularly STC, an opportunity to respond. That denied procedural fairness, so that material could not properly be taken into account. The appropriate course was to set aside the decision and remit the FOI applicant's review application to a differently constituted Tribunal for reconsideration.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Decision of the General Division of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Concerning Access Under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 / Appeal Panel Decision
Outcome
Appeal upheld; decision under appeal set aside and the respondent's application for review remitted to the Tribunal, differently constituted, for reconsideration.
Legal Topics
['access to Exempt Documents' 'dominant Purpose Test' 'opportunity to Be Heard' 'public Interest Over Ride Discretion' 'merits Review']
['administrative Law' 'freedom of Information' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'procedural Fairness' 'superannuation'] ['access to Exempt Documents' 'dominant Purpose Test' 'opportunity to Be Heard' 'public Interest Over Ride Discretion' 'merits Review']

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

Appeal From a Decision of the General Division of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Concerning Access Under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 / Appeal Panel Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the second medical report was not protected by legal professional privilege.' 'Whether the Tribunal denied procedural fairness by relying on the contents of the second medical report and conclusions about the statutory scheme as objective factors without giving the parties, particularly STC, an opportunity to respond.' 'Whether the Tribunal should have exercised the discretion under s 25 of the Freedom of Information Act 1989 to release the document even if it was exempt.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was upheld because the Tribunal relied on the contents of the second medical report and on its conclusions about the role of medical advice under the statutory scheme as objective evidence bearing on dominant purpose without first giving the parties, particularly STC, an opportunity to respond. That denied procedural fairness, so that material could not properly be taken into account. The appropriate course was to set aside the decision and remit the FOI applicant's review application to a differently constituted Tribunal for reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; decision under appeal set aside and the respondent's application for review remitted to the Tribunal, differently constituted, for reconsideration.

Orders

  • ["That the decision under appeal be set aside, and the respondent's application for review be remitted to the Tribunal, differently constituted, for reconsideration."]