McKinnon v Blacktown City Council [2012] NSWADT 44
The Agency did not establish that disclosure of the report could reasonably be expected to prejudice the supply of confidential information, found an action for breach of confidence, diminish competitive commercial value, or prejudice legitimate business, commercial, professional or financial interests. Disclosure...
Source-derived case information.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 20 March 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Application for ADT Review of a Refusal of Access to Government Information Under the Government Information (public Access) Act 2009 / Principal Judgment After Hearing
- Outcome
- Agency decision set aside; the Agency was required to release a redacted copy of the report to the Applicant within 30 days, and a temporary non-disclosure order was made for specified paragraphs of the reasons.
- Legal Topics
- ['government Information (public Access)' 'overriding Public Interest Against Disclosure' 'personal Information' 'confidential Information' 'breach of Confidence' 'commercial Information' 'public Interest Balancing']
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for ADT Review of a Refusal of Access to Government Information Under the Government Information (public Access) Act 2009 / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether there was an overriding public interest against disclosure of the consultant's report into alleged irregularities in Blacktown City Council's Chinese interpreter services." "Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the supply to the Agency of confidential information that facilitates the effective exercise of the Agency's functions." 'Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to found an action for breach of confidence or otherwise disclose information provided to the Agency in confidence.' "Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal individuals' personal information." 'Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to diminish the competitive commercial value of information or prejudice legitimate business, commercial, professional or financial interests.' 'Whether any information should be deleted from the report before release.']
Ratio Decidendi
The Agency did not establish that disclosure of the report could reasonably be expected to prejudice the supply of confidential information, found an action for breach of confidence, diminish competitive commercial value, or prejudice legitimate business, commercial, professional or financial interests. Disclosure would reveal personal information, but the public interest in disclosure of information concerning the conduct of the employee and contractor and their relationship outweighed that consideration because the report concerned alleged maladministration and misconduct in the expenditure of public funds. The public interest in disclosure did not outweigh the public interest against...
Court Disposition
Agency decision set aside; the Agency was required to release a redacted copy of the report to the Applicant within 30 days, and a temporary non-disclosure order was made for specified paragraphs of the reasons.
Orders
- ['Set aside the decision of the Agency and instead determine that within 30 days of the publication of these reasons the Agency release to the Applicant a copy of the report subject to deletions as indicated in these reasons.' 'Order under s 75(2) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 that for a period...
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