Freedman v Macquarie University [2008] NSWADT 105

Freedman v Macquarie University [2008] NSWADT 105

Document 15 contained information derived from confidential staff submissions to the Collins review. The Tribunal was satisfied that the information was obtained in confidence, that disclosure to the Applicant would amount to disclosure to the world at large and could reasonably be expected to prejudice future supply of candid staff information to the University, and that the public interest in maintaining confidentiality and protecting effective personnel management outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The University's determination refusing access was therefore the correct and preferable decision and was affirmed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 April 2008
Procedural Posture
External Review of a Freedom of Information Act 1989 Access Determination / Principal Matter Before the Administrative Decisions Tribunal
Outcome
The decision under review was affirmed.
Legal Topics
['access to Documents' 'personal Affairs Exemption' 'confidential Material' 'internal Working Documents' 'operations of Agencies' 'public Interest']
['administrative Law' 'freedom of Information'] ['access to Documents' 'personal Affairs Exemption' 'confidential Material' 'internal Working Documents' 'operations of Agencies' 'public Interest']

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

External Review of a Freedom of Information Act 1989 Access Determination / Principal Matter Before the Administrative Decisions Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Document 15 was exempt under clause 6 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 1989 because disclosure would involve unreasonable disclosure of information concerning personal affairs.' 'Whether Document 15 was exempt under clause 9 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 1989 as an internal working document containing deliberative or evaluative material whose disclosure would be contrary to the public interest.' 'Whether Document 15 was exempt under clause 13(b) of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 1989 because it contained information obtained in confidence, disclosure could prejudice future supply of such information, and disclosure would be contrary to the public interest.' 'Whether Document 15 was exempt under clause 16(a)(iii) of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 1989 because disclosure could have a substantial adverse effect on management or assessment of agency personnel.' 'Whether, on balance, the public interest favoured release or non-disclosure of Document 15.']

Ratio Decidendi

Document 15 contained information derived from confidential staff submissions to the Collins review. The Tribunal was satisfied that the information was obtained in confidence, that disclosure to the Applicant would amount to disclosure to the world at large and could reasonably be expected to prejudice future supply of candid staff information to the University, and that the public interest in maintaining confidentiality and protecting effective personnel management outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The University's determination refusing access was therefore the correct and preferable decision and was affirmed.

Court Disposition

The decision under review was affirmed.

Orders

  • ['The decision under review is affirmed.']