APB v Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District - [2013] NSWADT 43

Administrative Decisions Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: APB v Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District [2013] NSWADT 43
Hearing dates: On the papers
Decision date: 25 February 2013
Jurisdiction: General Division
Before: Naida Isenberg, Judicial member
Decision:
The decision under review is affirmed

Catchwords: reasonable grounds to believe that there are some further documents relevant to the application- whether the respondent has tried hard enough to find them
Legislation Cited: Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Cases Cited: Shepherd and Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning (1994) 1 QAR 464
Hemeon v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 201
DQ v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 215
Patsalis v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 213
Chapman v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2004] NSWADT 35
O'Hara v North Sydney Council [2005] NSWADT 100
Curtin v Vice-Chancellor, University of New South Wales (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 56
Beesley v Commissioner of PoliceHYPERLINK " \o "View Case"[2000] NSWADT 52
Cianfrano v Director General Department of Commerce and anor (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 195
Miriani v Commissioner of New South Wales Police [2005] NSWADT 187
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: APB (Applicant)
Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District (Respondent)
Representation: APB (Applicant in person)
Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District (Respondent)

File Number(s): 123131

reasons for decision

BACKGROUND

In January 2012, the applicant, pursuant to the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 ('GIPA Act') requested the respondent to provide access to documents relating to Guidelines, policies and relevant protocols and/or procedures at Shoalhaven and Wollongong Hospitals as at June 2005 to 2010. The applicant requested copies of those documents that covered:

Blood transfusion and related practices

Emergency and treating a patient as an emergency

Mandatory transfer of a patient

Consenting a patient to a surgical procedure

Signing of consent forms by a patient

Suites of unnamed drugs routinely administered

Day Only Unit at Wollongong Hospital

VMO's

Complaints handling by Hospital representatives

The respondent provided several hard copies of policies and links to policies (considered too large to print) that were considered relevant to her request but the applicant sought an internal review for the respondent to provide outstanding documents. Some additional documents were provided- seven additional policy document versions applicable at 2005 -and the applicant was informed that all documents relevant to her application had been provided.

The applicant also lodged another application under GIPA Act in February2012. She sought outstanding documents from [her] medical records and associated documents relating to 2 admissions to Shellharbour and Wollongong Hospitals in June 2005 and provided an extensive list of 22 categories of documents which she understood would be included. The respondent considered that it provided the applicant with her complete medical record.

By application dated 21 May 2012 the applicant sought review of both decisions.

The respondent's position remains that the applicant has been provided with all documents relevant to her applications.

CONSIDERATION

The approach of the Information Commissioner…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading APB v Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District

Details

AGLC: APB v Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District [2013] NSWADT 43
Case: [2013] NSWADT 43
Decision Date: 25 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of APB versus Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District involved a Freedom of Information application made by APB to the Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District. The applicant sought further documents in relation to a prior application. The matter was heard in the Information and Privacy Commission of New South Wales, which has the authority to review decisions made under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009. The central issue before the Commission was whether the Local Health District had adequately searched for documents relevant to the Freedom of Information application, particularly those that the applicant believed to be missing. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the Local Health District had fulfilled its obligation to locate and provide any documents that could reasonably be considered relevant to the applicant's request.

The Commission considered the evidence presented by both parties regarding the extent of the search conducted by the Local Health District. It examined the reasonableness of the efforts made to locate the documents, the adequacy of the search strategies employed, and whether there were any further documents that could reasonably be expected to be found. The Commission also assessed the applicant's submissions on the need for additional documents and whether the respondent had met its obligations under the Act. Ultimately, the Commission concluded that the Local Health District had undertaken a reasonable search for the documents and that there were no further documents that could be reasonably expected to be found. The Commission found that the Local Health District had fulfilled its obligations under the Act and affirmed the decision under review.

In reaching its decision, the Commission emphasised the importance of a balanced approach in Freedom of Information applications. It recognised that the Act requires agencies to make a reasonable search for documents, but it does not mandate an exhaustive search that would be disproportionate to the circumstances of the case. The Commission also noted the need for the applicant to provide specific and detailed information to assist the agency in locating the documents. Based on the evidence presented, the Commission determined that the Local Health District had made a reasonable effort to locate the documents and had met its obligations under the Act. The Commission's decision affirmed the Local Health District's handling of the Freedom of Information application, and no further orders were made.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is affirmed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	APB v Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District [2013] NSWADT 43
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Decision date:	25 February 2013
Jurisdiction:	General Division
Before:	Naida Isenberg, Judicial member
Decision:	The decision under review is affirmed
Catchwords:	reasonable grounds to believe that there are some further documents relevant to the application- whether the respondent has tried hard enough to find them
Legislation Cited:	Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Cases Cited:	Shepherd and Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning (1994) 1 QAR 464 Hemeon v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 201 DQ v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 215 Patsalis v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 213 Chapman v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2004] NSWADT 35 O'Hara v North Sydney Council [2005] NSWADT 100 Curtin v Vice-Chancellor, University of New South Wales (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 56 Beesley v Commissioner of PoliceHYPERLINK " \o "View Case"[2000] NSWADT 52 Cianfrano v Director General Department of Commerce and anor (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 195 Miriani v Commissioner of New South Wales Police [2005] NSWADT 187
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	APB (Applicant) Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District (Respondent)
Representation:	APB (Applicant in person) Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District (Respondent)
File Number(s):	123131