Ormonde v Chief Executive Officer, Healthquest [2004] NSWADT 191
The report is not incorrect or misleading except in relation to the reference in paragraph 3 regarding the medical certificate's authorship and the use of the word 'supposedly'. HealthQuest's refusal to amend the rest of the report was justified as the objections related to process or opinions rather than factual...
Source-derived case information.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 31 August 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Review of Administrative Decision / Tribunal Decision
- Outcome
- Affirmed in part, varied in part
- Legal Topics
- ['amendment of Records' 'freedom of Information Act (foi) Processes' 'medical Reports' 'fitness for Work Assessments']
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Review of Administrative Decision / Tribunal Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether HealthQuest's refusal to amend the medical report except in one respect was correct and preferable under s 39, s 44 of the Freedom of Information Act 1989"]
Ratio Decidendi
The report is not incorrect or misleading except in relation to the reference in paragraph 3 regarding the medical certificate's authorship and the use of the word 'supposedly'. HealthQuest's refusal to amend the rest of the report was justified as the objections related to process or opinions rather than factual inaccuracy.
Court Disposition
Affirmed in part, varied in part
Orders
- ["The agency's decision to amend paragraph 3 of the report of Dr Casolin dated 30 April 2003 but otherwise refuse to amend the report is affirmed except the content of the amendment in relation to paragraph 3 is varied to: The reference to a medical certificate from Mr Ormonde's GP, Dr Peter Purches, in the third...
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