Charles v SafeWork NSW [2023] NSWCATAD 259
Although Page 22 was confidential information obtained by SafeWork in exercising its WHS Act functions, and disclosure could engage public interest considerations against disclosure including prejudice to SafeWork's functions, disclosure of personal information, contravention of privacy principles and the s 271 secrecy provision, those considerations did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. Significant weight was given to Ms Charles obtaining her own personal information. Minimal or little weight was given to confidentiality, agency-function and secrecy considerations because Page 22 had already been disclosed to Ms Charles in largely unredacted form in 2014 and 2021, so...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 11 October 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Administrative Review of a Decision Concerning Access to Government Information Under the Government Information (public Access) Act 2009 (nsw) / Principal Judgment
- Outcome
- The respondent's decision was set aside and a substituted decision was made granting access to the disputed information except for specified words in lines five and six.
- Legal Topics
- ['gipa Act Access Application' 'overriding Public Interest Against Disclosure' 'confidential Information' 'personal Information' 'secrecy Provisions' 'effective Exercise of Agency Functions']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Administrative Review of a Decision Concerning Access to Government Information Under the Government Information (public Access) Act 2009 (nsw) / Principal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether there was an overriding public interest against disclosure of part of line four and all of lines five to ten of the email dated 14 August 2013.' 'Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the supply to SafeWork NSW of confidential information facilitating the effective exercise of its functions.' "Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the effective exercise of SafeWork NSW's functions." 'Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal personal information of individuals or contravene an information protection principle.' 'Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to contravene s 271 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW).']
Ratio Decidendi
Although Page 22 was confidential information obtained by SafeWork in exercising its WHS Act functions, and disclosure could engage public interest considerations against disclosure including prejudice to SafeWork's functions, disclosure of personal information, contravention of privacy principles and the s 271 secrecy provision, those considerations did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. Significant weight was given to Ms Charles obtaining her own personal information. Minimal or little weight was given to confidentiality, agency-function and secrecy considerations because Page 22 had already been disclosed to Ms Charles in largely unredacted form in 2014 and 2021, so...
Court Disposition
The respondent's decision was set aside and a substituted decision was made granting access to the disputed information except for specified words in lines five and six.
Orders
- ['The decision of the respondent to withhold part of line four and all of lines five to ten of the email dated 14 August 2013 is set aside, and in substitution thereof a decision is made that the applicant be granted access to all of that information with the exception of: (a) The first word of line five; and (b)...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment