CHANNEL 31 COMMUNITY EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION LTD -v- INGLIS [2001] WASCA 405

Reported Decision:	(2001) 25 WAR 147
Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 405
Case No:	SJA:1126/2001	Heard:	6 DECEMBER 2001
Coram:	HASLUCK J	Delivered:	14/12/01
No of pages:	15	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	CHANNEL 31 COMMUNITY EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION LTD GORDON WALLISS INGLIS
Catchwords:	Freedom of information Right of access to the documents of an agency Meaning of agency Whether a community television and broadcasting station is an agency Meaning of public body or office Channel 31 held not to be a body that is established for a public purpose under a written law
Legislation:	Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) Freedom of Information Act 1992, s 3, s 10(1), s 85 Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) , s 18
Case References:	Commissioner of Police v District Court of NSW (1993) 31 NSWLR 606 Delegate of the Australian Postal Commission v Mackay District Cane Growers' Executive (1979) 37 FLR 472 Ex parte Professional Engineers Association (1959) 107 CLR 208 IW v City of Perth (1996) 191 CLR 1 Pfizer Corporation v Ministry of Health (1963) 3 All ER 779 Queensland Law Society Incorporated v Albietz (1996) 2 QR 580 Re Brennan and the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory (1984) 6 ALD 428 Re English and Queensland Law Society Incorporated (1995) Qd R 714 Renmark Hotel Inc v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1949) 79 CLR 11 The Amalgamated Society of Engineers v The Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 129 Thompson & Anor v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1959) 102 CLR 315 Western Australian Turf Club v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1978) 19 ALR 167 Austereo Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1993) 41 FCR 1

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : CHANNEL 31 COMMUNITY EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION LTD -v- INGLIS [2001] WASCA 405 CORAM : HASLUCK J HEARD : 6 DECEMBER 2001 DELIVERED : 14 DECEMBER 2001 FILE NO/S : SJA 1126 of 2001 BETWEEN : CHANNEL 31 COMMUNITY EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION LTD

Appellant

AND

GORDON WALLISS INGLIS

Respondent

Catchwords:

Freedom of information - Right of access to the documents of an agency - Meaning of agency - Whether a community television and broadcasting station is an agency - Meaning of public body or office - Channel 31 held not to be a body that is established for a public purpose under a written law

Legislation:

Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth)

Freedom of Information Act 1992, s 3, s 10(1), s 85
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) , s 18

Result:

Appeal allowed

(Page 2)

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr J C Curthoys

Respondent : In person

Solicitors:

Appellant : Richard O'Shannassy & Co

Respondent : In person

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Commissioner of Police v District Court of NSW (1993) 31 NSWLR 606
Delegate of the Australian Postal Commission v Mackay District Cane Growers' Executive (1979) 37 FLR 472
Ex parte Professional…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Channel 31 Community Educational Television Ltd v Inglis and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] WASCA 405
Decision Date: 14 DECEMBER 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Channel 31 Community Educational Television Ltd v Inglis, the applicant, Channel 31, sought an order for the respondent to produce certain documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). Channel 31 is a community television and broadcasting station, while the respondent, Inglis, is an individual who had previously held a position within Channel 31. The primary dispute was whether Channel 31 qualified as an "agency" under the Act, and thus if the documents in question were subject to a right of access.

The legal issues before the court were twofold: whether Channel 31 constituted an "agency" under the Act, and whether it could be considered a "public body or office" established for a public purpose under a written law. The court had to determine if Channel 31's activities and operations were of a public nature and whether it was established with a view to achieving a public purpose. The court considered the nature of Channel 31's activities, its funding, and its governance structure in making its decision.

The court found that Channel 31 did not qualify as an "agency" for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act. The reasoning was that Channel 31 was not established for a public purpose under a written law and did not operate as a public body or office. The court concluded that while Channel 31 did engage in activities that had a public benefit, it was not established with a view to achieving a public purpose, and its funding and governance did not align with the characteristics of a public body or office. Consequently, the court ruled that the documents in question were not subject to the right of access under the Act. The appeal was allowed, and the orders sought by Channel 31 were dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

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.