Black v Hunter New England Local Health District (No 3) [2020] NSWCATAD 280

Black v Hunter New England Local Health District (No 3) [2020] NSWCATAD 280

The information sought in the 2020 application was the same information as in the 2011 application determined by the ADT. The new materials did not materially alter the public interest balance, and the personal and health information of other persons remained relevant considerations against disclosure. Even taking account of the applicant's distress, the social worker's letter, and the age of the document, there were no reasonable grounds for believing the agency would make a different decision. The requirements for refusal to deal under section 60(1)(b) of the GIPA Act were therefore satisfied, and the agency's decision was affirmed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Government Information Access Review Under the Government Information (public Access) Act 2009 / On the Papers; Review of Agency Decision Refusing to Deal With Access Application
Outcome
The decision of the Agency is affirmed; suppression order made for Dr [name suppressed]'s name.
Legal Topics
['refusal to Deal With Access Application' 'previous Application for Same Information' 'public Interest Against Disclosure' 'personal Information and Health Information' 'suppression Order']
['administrative Law' 'government Information' 'privacy'] ['refusal to Deal With Access Application' 'previous Application for Same Information' 'public Interest Against Disclosure' 'personal Information and Health Information' 'suppression Order']

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

Government Information Access Review Under the Government Information (public Access) Act 2009 / On the Papers; Review of Agency Decision Refusing to Deal With Access Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the agency could refuse to deal with the access application under section 60(1)(b) of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 because it had already decided a previous application for the same or substantially the same information and there were no reasonable grounds for believing it would make a different decision.' "Whether the applicant's new materials, including a therapeutic social worker's letter, provided reasonable grounds for believing the agency would make a different decision on disclosure of the unredacted report." 'Whether the name of Dr [name suppressed] should be prohibited from disclosure under sec 64(1)(a) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.']

Ratio Decidendi

The information sought in the 2020 application was the same information as in the 2011 application determined by the ADT. The new materials did not materially alter the public interest balance, and the personal and health information of other persons remained relevant considerations against disclosure. Even taking account of the applicant's distress, the social worker's letter, and the age of the document, there were no reasonable grounds for believing the agency would make a different decision. The requirements for refusal to deal under section 60(1)(b) of the GIPA Act were therefore satisfied, and the agency's decision was affirmed.

Court Disposition

The decision of the Agency is affirmed; suppression order made for Dr [name suppressed]'s name.

Orders

  • ['The decision of the Agency is AFFIRMED.' 'The name of Dr [name suppressed] is prohibited from disclosure pursuant to sec 64(1)(a) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.']