Howell v Macquarie University [2006] NSWADT 207

Howell v Macquarie University [2006] NSWADT 207

The Respondent did not establish that disclosure of document #1 would be contrary to the public interest for the purposes of clause 9, and the whole of document #1 fell within the Applicant's FOI request; however, the document was remitted so the Respondent could consider other possible exemptions. The remaining documents considered were communications involving the Respondent's legal advisor, or had a clear nexus with legal advice and anticipated litigation, and were exempt under clause 10; editing was not practicable. Accordingly, the decisions were affirmed except for the remittal of document #1.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Freedom of Information Act 1989 Review Proceedings / Review of Determinations Refusing Access to Documents
Outcome
Decisions under review affirmed with respect to the documents considered; document #1 in the 053277 Schedule of Exempt Documents remitted to the Respondent for further consideration.
Legal Topics
['access to Documents' 'internal Working Documents' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'public Interest Exemption' 'confidential Information']
['administrative Law' 'freedom of Information'] ['access to Documents' 'internal Working Documents' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'public Interest Exemption' 'confidential Information']

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

Freedom of Information Act 1989 Review Proceedings / Review of Determinations Refusing Access to Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether document #1 in proceedings 053277 was exempt as an internal working document under clause 9 of Schedule I to the Freedom of Information Act 1989.' "Whether document #1 fell within the scope of the Applicant's first FOI request." 'Whether documents #2 to #6 and #8 to #15 in proceedings 053320 were exempt under clause 10 of Schedule I to the Freedom of Information Act 1989 on the basis of legal professional privilege.' 'Whether editing exempt matter from the disputed documents was reasonably practicable.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondent did not establish that disclosure of document #1 would be contrary to the public interest for the purposes of clause 9, and the whole of document #1 fell within the Applicant's FOI request; however, the document was remitted so the Respondent could consider other possible exemptions. The remaining documents considered were communications involving the Respondent's legal advisor, or had a clear nexus with legal advice and anticipated litigation, and were exempt under clause 10; editing was not practicable. Accordingly, the decisions were affirmed except for the remittal of document #1.

Court Disposition

Decisions under review affirmed with respect to the documents considered; document #1 in the 053277 Schedule of Exempt Documents remitted to the Respondent for further consideration.

Orders

  • ['The decisions under review are affirmed with respect to the documents considered in these reasons for decision.' 'Document #1 in the 053277 Schedule of Exempt Documents is remitted to the respondent for further consideration in accordance with paragraph 16 of these reasons.']