Howell v Macquarie University (No 2) (GD) [2007] NSWADTAP 51

Howell v Macquarie University (No 2) (GD) [2007] NSWADTAP 51

The University did not prove that the deleted information in Document 1 was obtained in confidence for the purposes of cl 13(b)(i), because the communication was tangential to the child welfare investigation, concerned perceived employee misconduct in not complying with an employer's direction, and there was no...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Freedom of Information Appeal Extended to the Merits / Appeal Panel Determination on the Papers After Remittal/reconsideration
Outcome
Appeal allowed in respect of Document 1; respondent's determination affirmed in respect of Documents 2-6, 8-12 and 14.
Legal Topics
['confidentiality Exemption' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'residual Discretion to Release Exempt Documents' 'internal Working Documents' 'merits Review']
['administrative Law' 'freedom of Information'] ['confidentiality Exemption' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'residual Discretion to Release Exempt Documents' 'internal Working Documents' 'merits Review']

Source-derived case record

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 Appeal Extended to the Merits / Appeal Panel Determination on the Papers After Remittal/reconsideration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the deleted parts of Document 1 were exempt under Freedom of Information Act 1989, Schedule 1, cl 13(b).' 'Whether the Tribunal should exercise the residual discretion to allow access to documents otherwise exempt for legal professional privilege.' 'Whether any strong grounds justified overriding the legal professional privilege exemption for Documents 2-6, 8-12 and 14.']

Ratio Decidendi

The University did not prove that the deleted information in Document 1 was obtained in confidence for the purposes of cl 13(b)(i), because the communication was tangential to the child welfare investigation, concerned perceived employee misconduct in not complying with an employer's direction, and there was no direct evidence from either party to the communication as to confidentiality. For Documents 2-6, 8-12 and 14, no matter of sufficient significance was raised to justify overriding legal professional privilege and granting access to the exempt material.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in respect of Document 1; respondent's determination affirmed in respect of Documents 2-6, 8-12 and 14.

Orders

  • ['Determination of respondent in respect of Document 1 set aside.' 'Determination of respondent in respect of Documents 2-6; 8-12; and 14 affirmed.']