Schlebaum -v- Director General, Department of Community Services and Gliksman [2001] NSWADT 97

Schlebaum -v- Director General, Department of Community Services and Gliksman [2001] NSWADT 97

The Tribunal determined that whether Dr Schlebaum is an 'interested person' depends on whether the agency should have consulted her as the documents may relate to her personal or business affairs; the preliminary issue of whether the documents contain such information must be determined at hearing before further procedural questions can be addressed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Freedom of Information Review / Preliminary Matter
Outcome
Matter set down for hearing of preliminary question
Legal Topics
['access to Documents' 'freedom of Information' 'personal Affairs' 'business Affairs']

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

Freedom of Information Review / Preliminary Matter

  1. 1 ["Whether Dr Schlebaum is an 'interested person' entitled to review under s 55 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997" "Whether Dr Schlebaum's application for review was lodged within time as prescribed under the relevant statutes" "Whether the documents in dispute relate to Dr Schlebaum's personal or business affairs"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal determined that whether Dr Schlebaum is an 'interested person' depends on whether the agency should have consulted her as the documents may relate to her personal or business affairs; the preliminary issue of whether the documents contain such information must be determined at hearing before further procedural questions can be addressed.

Court Disposition

Matter set down for hearing of preliminary question

Orders

  • ["The matter is set down for a hearing on the preliminary question of whether the documents in dispute contain information relating to Dr Schlebaum's personal or business affairs."]