Van der Wall v University of Sydney [2008] NSWADT 213

Van der Wall v University of Sydney [2008] NSWADT 213

Pages 1 to 3 of Document 1 and pages 10 to 11 of Document 2 were not exempt because, although some material related to the appointment process, those pages were largely factual or contained non-critical recommendations or opinions, their release would not be contrary to the public interest, would not reasonably be...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of a Decision Under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 Refusing Access to Documents / Principal Matter
Outcome
Decision varied in part and otherwise affirmed.
Legal Topics
['access to Documents' 'internal Working Documents' 'professional Affairs' 'confidential Material' 'public Interest' 'university Recruitment and Selection Processes']
['freedom of Information' 'administrative Law'] ['access to Documents' 'internal Working Documents' 'professional Affairs' 'confidential Material' 'public Interest' 'university Recruitment and Selection Processes']

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 Under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 Refusing Access to Documents / Principal Matter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the documents sought by Dr Hans Van der Wall were exempt under clause 9 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 1989 as internal working documents.' "Whether the documents were exempt under clause 7(1)(c) of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 1989 because disclosure could reasonably be expected to have an unreasonable adverse effect on Dr Michael Fulham's professional affairs or prejudice the future supply of such information." 'Whether the documents were exempt under clause 13(b) of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 1989 as confidential material.' 'Whether the Tribunal should exercise its residual discretion to release documents otherwise found exempt.']

Ratio Decidendi

Pages 1 to 3 of Document 1 and pages 10 to 11 of Document 2 were not exempt because, although some material related to the appointment process, those pages were largely factual or contained non-critical recommendations or opinions, their release would not be contrary to the public interest, would not reasonably be expected to have an unreasonable adverse effect on Dr Fulham's professional affairs, and would not prejudice future supply of information to the University. Pages 4 to 9 of Document 1, being referees' reports, and pages 12 to 28 of Document 2, being Dr Fulham's curriculum vitae, were exempt under clauses 9 and 13 because they were supplied or created in confidence for University...

Court Disposition

Decision varied in part and otherwise affirmed.

Orders

  • ['The Tribunal varies the decision under review in respect of the first three pages of Document 1 (numbered 1 to 3) and the first two pages of Document 2 (numbered 10 to 11), which must be released to the Applicant within 28 days after the date of this decision, but otherwise affirms the decision.']