Macquarie University v Howell (No. 2) (GD) [2009] NSWADTAP 19

Macquarie University v Howell (No. 2) (GD) [2009] NSWADTAP 19

Most disputed documents were exempt under Freedom of Information Act 1989, Schedule 1, cl 13(b) because they contained confidential material obtained or created in a sensitive child protection investigation, disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of such information and the conduct of similar investigations, and the public interest in confidentiality, child protection, effective investigations and agency administration outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The exceptions were the first two pages of documents 32 and 38 and the whole of document 49, for which the Panel was not satisfied that the claimed exemption should prevent release.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Freedom of Information Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision on the Merits After Appeal Extended to the Merits
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; the University's decision affirmed for documents claimed exempt under clause 13 except for the first two pages of documents 32 and 38, and the whole of document 49.
Legal Topics
['confidential Material Exemption' 'freedom of Information Act 1989, Schedule 1, Cl 13(b)' 'child Protection Investigation Records' 'public Interest in Disclosure and Non Disclosure' 'prejudice to Future Supply of Information' 'residual Discretion to Release Exempt Matter']
['administrative Law' 'freedom of Information'] ['confidential Material Exemption' 'freedom of Information Act 1989, Schedule 1, Cl 13(b)' 'child Protection Investigation Records' 'public Interest in Disclosure and Non Disclosure' 'prejudice to Future Supply of Information' 'residual Discretion to Release Exempt Matter']

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 Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision on the Merits After Appeal Extended to the Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the affected documents satisfied Freedom of Information Act 1989, Schedule 1, cl 13(b)(ii), because disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of such information to the Government or to an agency.' 'Whether disclosure of the affected documents would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest under Freedom of Information Act 1989, Schedule 1, cl 13(b)(iii).' 'Whether invoices and investigator working documents should be treated differently from witness statements, investigation reports and communications connected with the investigation.' 'Whether the Tribunal should exercise a residual discretion to release matter found to be exempt.']

Ratio Decidendi

Most disputed documents were exempt under Freedom of Information Act 1989, Schedule 1, cl 13(b) because they contained confidential material obtained or created in a sensitive child protection investigation, disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of such information and the conduct of similar investigations, and the public interest in confidentiality, child protection, effective investigations and agency administration outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The exceptions were the first two pages of documents 32 and 38 and the whole of document 49, for which the Panel was not satisfied that the claimed exemption should prevent release.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; the University's decision affirmed for documents claimed exempt under clause 13 except for the first two pages of documents 32 and 38, and the whole of document 49.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed as follows.' 'Decision of University in respect of those documents for which a claim to exemption was made under clause 13 affirmed, except for first two pages of documents 32 and 38, and the whole of document 49.']