Adani Mining Pty Ltd v Information Commissioner

The matter in question involves Adani Mining Pty Ltd, a mining company, and the Information Commissioner. The dispute centres around the disclosure of certain documents under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld). The case was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The appeal stems from a decision by the Office of the Information Commissioner, which ruled that certain documents were not exempt from disclosure under the Act and ordered their release. Adani Mining challenges this decision, arguing that the documents are protected by contractual confidentiality and that the Commissioner erred in law by failing to recognise this. The appeal raises questions about the scope of the Right to Information Act, the admissibility of fresh evidence, and whether the public interest in disclosure should be considered.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Right to Information Act extends to information protected by contractual confidentiality, if the Commissioner erred in failing to find the contract, if fresh evidence could be admitted on appeal, and if it was relevant to consider whether the disclosure of information was in the public interest. The appeal hinged on the interpretation of the Act and the principles of administrative law, specifically focusing on whether the Commissioner made an error of law in determining the documents were not exempt. The court had to decide if the contractual confidentiality was a valid exemption and if the Commissioner's decision was legally sound.

The Appeal Tribunal found in favour of Adani Mining. The Tribunal held that the Right to Information Act does not override contractual confidentiality and that the Commissioner had erred in failing to consider the contractual obligations. The Tribunal found that the fresh evidence provided by Adani Mining was relevant and could be considered on appeal. The appeal tribunal also held that the public interest consideration was pertinent in determining whether the documents should be disclosed. As such, the Tribunal concluded that the Information Commissioner had erred in law, and the decision was set aside.

The tribunal ordered that the appeal be allowed, the decision of the Information Commissioner made on 12 March 2019 be set aside, and the matter be returned to the Information Commissioner for reconsideration. The parties were instructed to file any submissions on costs by a specified date. Unless a party requested an oral hearing, the issue of costs would be determined on the papers.