Kermode v Department of Environment & Climate Change [2009] NSWADT 120

Kermode v Department of Environment & Climate Change [2009] NSWADT 120

The deleted information in the email, being material capable of identifying the Environment Line complainant, was obtained in confidence. Disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of such complaints to the Department, because confidential public reporting was a critical source of...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of a Decision Refusing Access in Part to a Document Under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 / On the Papers; Decision After Submissions Closed
Outcome
The decision of the Department is affirmed.
Legal Topics
['access to Documents' 'information Obtained in Confidence' 'public Interest' 'future Supply of Information' 'residual Discretion to Disclose Exempt Matter']
['administrative Law' 'freedom of Information'] ['access to Documents' 'information Obtained in Confidence' 'public Interest' 'future Supply of Information' 'residual Discretion to Disclose Exempt Matter']

Source-derived case record

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

Application for Review of a Decision Refusing Access in Part to a Document Under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 / On the Papers; Decision After Submissions Closed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the deleted material in the email was information falling within the clause 13(b) exemption in Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 1989.' 'If the deleted material was exempt, whether the correct and preferred decision was to refuse access to that information.']

Ratio Decidendi

The deleted information in the email, being material capable of identifying the Environment Line complainant, was obtained in confidence. Disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of such complaints to the Department, because confidential public reporting was a critical source of information for monitoring native vegetation clearing and complainants needed confidence that their identities would not be disclosed. On balance, disclosure would be contrary to the public interest, and there were no strong grounds justifying an override of the exemption. The Department's decision to refuse access to the deleted information was therefore the correct and preferred...

Court Disposition

The decision of the Department is affirmed.

Orders

  • ['The decision of the Department is affirmed.']