Gordon v University of Sydney [2011] NSWADT 278

Gordon v University of Sydney [2011] NSWADT 278

The email exchanges are held by the respondent and are exempt under clause 6 (personal affairs) as disclosure of the identities and personal concerns of authors and recipients would constitute unreasonable disclosure of personal affairs. Clause 13(b) was not made out. The residual discretion to override exemption was not justified. The matter was remitted for reconsideration specifically regarding the disclosure of expressions of personal concern and whether redacted access could be given.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Review of Administrative Decision / Decision
Outcome
Decision set aside and remitted for reconsideration; related application listed for directions.
Legal Topics
['access to Documents' 'exempt Documents' 'personal Affairs Exemption' 'confidential Information Exemption' "agency's Documents Under Foi"]
['administrative Law' 'freedom of Information'] ['access to Documents' 'exempt Documents' 'personal Affairs Exemption' 'confidential Information Exemption' "agency's Documents Under Foi"]

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

Review of Administrative Decision / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the documents are 'held' by the respondent within the meaning of the FOI Act" 'Whether the email exchanges are exempt documents under clause 6 (personal affairs) or clause 13(b) (information obtained in confidence) of Schedule 1 of the FOI Act' 'If exempt, whether override discretion should be exercised to grant access' 'Whether applicant may be provided with a redacted copy under subsection 25(4) of the FOI Act']

Ratio Decidendi

The email exchanges are held by the respondent and are exempt under clause 6 (personal affairs) as disclosure of the identities and personal concerns of authors and recipients would constitute unreasonable disclosure of personal affairs. Clause 13(b) was not made out. The residual discretion to override exemption was not justified. The matter was remitted for reconsideration specifically regarding the disclosure of expressions of personal concern and whether redacted access could be given.

Court Disposition

Decision set aside and remitted for reconsideration; related application listed for directions.

Orders

  • ['The decision of the respondent that is the subject of File No 103236 is set aside and remitted for reconsideration in accordance with the findings and recommendation as set out in these reasons for decision.' 'The application that is File No 103331 is listed for directions on 2 February 2012 at 9.30 am.']