Legal Research
Cases
Bray v Workers Rehabilitation & Compensation Corporation

Bray v Workers Rehabilitation & Compensation Corporation

Case [1994] SASC 4478 30 March 1994

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

COURT IN THE FULL COURT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA KING CJ(1), BOLLEN(2) AND MULLIGHAN(3) JJ

CWDS
Administrative law - freedom of information - Freedom of Information Act - report of insurance assessors prepared for WorkCover to enable WorkCover to consider claim by the second respondent for compensation - information in the report was given by fellow workers of the second respondent - they gave information to the assessor on his promise of confidence ie that the information would not be disclosed to the second respondent - WorkCover directed by Ombudsman to disclose much of the information - whether report or part of it exempt from disclosure - HELD report exempt because disclosure would found an action for breach of confidence - Schedule 1 of Act clause 13(a) - HELD also that the appellants are persons dissatisfied within 540 of the Act

Freedom of Information Act 1991ss 12, 26 and 40 and Schl cl4, cl9(1) and cl13(a) and (b) and Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1986 ss 110 and 112. Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers v Secretary, Department of Transport (1987) 71 ALR 73 at 79-81 and 82; Moorgate Tobacco Co Ltd v Philip Morris Ltd and Anor (No. 2) (1984-85) 156 CLR 414 and Johns v Australian Securities Commission and Others (1993) 116 ALR 567 at 576-577, applied. Brodbridge and Anor v Stammers (1987) 76 ALR 339 at 341, discussed. Murtagh v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1984) 54 ALR 313; Attorney-General's Department and Anor v Cockcroft (1986) 64 ALR 97; Re Organon (Australia) Pty Ltd and Department of Community Services and Health : Public Interest Advocacy Centre (party joined) (1987) 13 ALD 588; Salter and Ors v NCSC (1988) 132 ACLR 253 at 256-257; Onus and Anor v Alcoa of Australia Limited (1981) 149 CLR 27; R v HM Treasury ex parte Smedley (1985) 1 All ER
589; Re Boehm and Ombudsman (Cth) (1985) 8 ALN N29; Accident Compensation Commission v Groom (1991) 2 VR 322 and In re Perqamon Press Ltd (1971) Ch 388, considered.

HRNG ADELAIDE, 7 February 1994 #DATE 30:3:1994

Counsel for appellants: Mr T M McRae

Solicitors for appellants: Reilly Basheer Downs
and Humphries

Counsel for respondent: Ms C M Branson QC

Solicitors for respondent: Thomsons

Respondent Stanley: In person

JUDGE1 KING CJ I would answer the questions in the Case Stated as follows:-
1. Yes. The appellants are within the meaning of s.40 of
the Freedom of Information Act persons dissatisfied with the
Determination of Workcover dated 20th May 1993.

2. The Report of T J Sinclair and Associates dated 7th
February 1992 is an exempt document pursuant to Clause 13(a)
of Schedule 1 to the aforesaid Act.

2. I agree with the reasons of Justice Bollen.

JUDGE2 BOLLEN J This is a case which we may take to have been referred by a Judge for decisions on questions of law. On some matters which arise it will be necessary to decide whether a question of law…

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 Bray v Workers Rehabilitation & Compensation Corporation

Details

AGLC: Bray v Workers Rehabilitation & Compensation Corporation [1994] SASC 4478
Case: [1994] SASC 4478
Decision Date: 30 March 1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Bray v Workers Rehabilitation & Compensation Corporation, the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia was asked to decide two questions related to the disclosure of a report under the Freedom of Information Act 1991. The first question was whether the appellants, Bray and Smith, were "persons dissatisfied" with the determination of WorkCover, and thus had the right to appeal. The second question was whether the report in question was exempt from disclosure under the Act. The court found that the appellants were indeed "persons dissatisfied" with the determination, as they had a genuine interest in having the determination reviewed, and were adversely affected by it. The court also found that the report was an exempt document under clause 13(a) of Schedule 1 of the Act, as its disclosure would found an action for breach of confidence.

The case involved a claim for workers' compensation by Michelle Stanley, who alleged she had been injured in the course of her employment. WorkCover, the respondent, had instructed loss adjusters to obtain statements from Bray and Smith, fellow employees of Stanley. The loss adjusters had promised Bray and Smith that their statements would be kept confidential and not disclosed to Stanley. However, the Ombudsman directed WorkCover to disclose parts of the report to Stanley, which led to the appellants appealing against the determination.

The court concluded that the appellants were "persons dissatisfied" with the determination, as they had an interest in the matter of an intensity and degree well above that of an ordinary member of the public. The court further found that the report was an exempt document under clause 13(a) of Schedule 1 of the Act, as its disclosure would found an action for breach of confidence. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining confidentiality when information is given under a promise of confidence, and that the disclosure of such information could lead to legal action.

Orders