MJ v Department of Education & Commerce [2013] NSWADT 213

MJ v Department of Education & Commerce [2013] NSWADT 213

The agency did not correctly refuse access to the email record relevant to category 1 information and mobile numbers of the Principal Investigator, both of which are to be provided to the applicant, but the remaining disputed information (mainly personal information of third parties or provided in confidence) attracts an overriding public interest against disclosure and the agency's decision is affirmed in relation to that information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Access to Information / Administrative Review / Final Decision (on the Papers)
Outcome
Set aside in part; affirmed in part
Legal Topics
['government Information Access' 'public Interest Disclosure' 'personal Information' 'public Interest Considerations Against Disclosure']
['administrative Law' 'freedom of Information'] ['government Information Access' 'public Interest Disclosure' 'personal Information' 'public Interest Considerations Against Disclosure']

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

Access to Information / Administrative Review / Final Decision (on the Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the agency conducted reasonable searches for the requested information under the GIPA Act' 'Whether information withheld is subject to an overriding public interest against disclosure' "Whether mobile phone numbers of staff are 'personal information' under the GIPA Act"]

Ratio Decidendi

The agency did not correctly refuse access to the email record relevant to category 1 information and mobile numbers of the Principal Investigator, both of which are to be provided to the applicant, but the remaining disputed information (mainly personal information of third parties or provided in confidence) attracts an overriding public interest against disclosure and the agency's decision is affirmed in relation to that information.

Court Disposition

Set aside in part; affirmed in part

Orders

  • ["The respondent's decision regarding category 1 requested information is set aside and replaced with a decision granting access to the information held (noting prior disclosure to applicant)." "The respondent's decision to refuse access to the deleted mobile telephone numbers of the principal Investigator of EPAC...