Giddings v Australian Information Commissioner [2017] FCAFC 225

Giddings v Australian Information Commissioner [2017] FCAFC 225

There was no error by the primary judge in refusing suppression or anonymity orders because the statutory and common law principles of open justice require public hearings and judgments unless strict necessity for suppression is demonstrated, which was not the case. There was no legal entitlement to damages for malfeasance as neither the elements of the tort nor a relevant statutory cause existed on the facts. The claim of apprehended bias was not firmly established on evidence. The appeal was misconceived, and no grounds for interfering with the primary judge’s orders were identified.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['freedom of Information' 'judicial Review' 'open Justice' 'suppression Orders' 'misfeasance in Public Office' 'apprehended Bias']
['administrative Law' 'practice and Procedure' 'torts'] ['freedom of Information' 'judicial Review' 'open Justice' 'suppression Orders' 'misfeasance in Public Office' 'apprehended Bias']

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

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred by failing to order anonymity or suppression of the appellant’s identity' 'Whether the primary judge erred in ordering the substitution of the statutory office holder as respondent' 'Whether damages could be awarded for alleged malfeasance (misfeasance in public office)' 'Whether the primary judge was affected by apprehended bias']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no error by the primary judge in refusing suppression or anonymity orders because the statutory and common law principles of open justice require public hearings and judgments unless strict necessity for suppression is demonstrated, which was not the case. There was no legal entitlement to damages for malfeasance as neither the elements of the tort nor a relevant statutory cause existed on the facts. The claim of apprehended bias was not firmly established on evidence. The appeal was misconceived, and no grounds for interfering with the primary judge’s orders were identified.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The Appellant is to pay the costs of the appeal of the Respondent.']